[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190612120012.mmokgz4yybywfs26@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:00:12 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC] printk/sysrq: Don't play with console_loglevel
On Wed 2019-06-12 17:36:43, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (06/06/19 09:10), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Just to be sure. I wanted to say that I like the idea with
> > KERN_UNSUPRESSED. So, I think that we are on the same page.
>
> I understand. All I wanted to say is that KERN_UNSUPRESSED is
> per-message, while the most interesting (and actually broken)
> cases, IMHO, are per-context, IOW things like this one
>
> console_loglevel = NEW
> foo()
> dump_stack()
> printk
> ...
> printk
> console_loglevel = OLD
>
> KERN_UNSUPRESSED does not help here. We probably can't convert
> dump_stack() to KERN_UNSUPRESSED.
I agree. I take KERN_UNSUPRESSED like a nice trick how to pass
the information about the unsupressed printk context via
printk_safe and printk_nmi per-CPU buffers.
The single line in sysrq __handle_sysrq() seems to be the only
location where KERN_UNSUPRESSED can be used directly.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists