[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b44b9b7c0f0d5ace01e56d2bac0251573ea7df17.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 20:53:52 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] printk: store instead of processing cont parts
On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 11:30 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:51 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
> > Do I get it right, what you are saying is - when we process a PR_CONT
> > message the cont buffer should already contain previous non-LOG_NEWLINE
> > and non-PR_CONT message, otherwise it's a bug?
>
> No.
>
> I'm saying that the code that does PR_CONT should have done *some*
> printing before, otherwise it's at the very least questionable.
>
> IOW, you can't just randomly start printing with PR_CONT, without
> having established _some_ context for it.
I believe there are at least a few cases that
_only_ use pr_cont to emit
complete lines.
For example: SEQ_printf in kernel/sched/debug.c
Powered by blists - more mailing lists