[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200302095916.GA66317@google.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 18:59:16 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lech Perczak <l.perczak@...lintechnologies.com>,
"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 (20/03/02 10:49), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> It is just a detail. But I would make the flag independent
> on the existing printk_safe stuff. printk_safe will get removed
> with the lockless printk buffer. While the irq_work() will still
> be needed for the wakeup functions.
Yeah, somehow I thought, for a moment, that we would also remove
printk_deferred() once we have lockless buffer, but seems that we
can remove it only when console_sem is gone.
> Sergey, do you agree and want to update your patch accordingly?
Yes, can update the patch.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists