[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200228205334.GF101220@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:53:34 -0500
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Lech Perczak <l.perczak@...lintechnologies.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Krzysztof DrobiĆski
<k.drobinski@...lintechnologies.com>,
Pawel Lenkow <p.lenkow@...lintechnologies.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in v4.19.106 breaking waking up of readers of
/proc/kmsg and /dev/kmsg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 02:02:17PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> So, I would still prefer to _revert_ the commit 15341b1dd409749f
> ("char/random: silence a lockdep splat with printk()"). It calmed
> down lockdep report. The real life danger is dubious. The warning
> is printed early when the system is running on single CPU where
> it could not race.
I'm wondering now if we should revert this commit before 5.6 comes out
(it landed in 5.6-rc1). "Is much less likely to happen given the
other random initialization patches" is not the same as "guaranteed
not to happen".
What do folks think?
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists