[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <335af380-3bb0-c1c4-ddd5-5c9585d12612@arista.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:26:32 +0100
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Add CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC
On 6/28/21 1:43 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> Is it enough to keep the current level during panic()?
Yes.
> It might be
> easier to introduce a commandline option, for example, no_console_verbose_panic.
> It would do:
>
> static inline void console_verbose_panic(void)
> {
> if (!no_console_verbose_panic)
> console_verbose();
> }
>
> It is clear what it does. On the other hand, the logic with particular
> loglevels is not clear. 3 different proposals has already been mentioned
> in this thread:
>
> if (console_loglevel &&
> (CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC > console_loglevel)) {
> console_loglevel = CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC;
> }
>
> vs.
>
> if (console_loglevel)
> console_loglevel = CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC;
>
> vs.
>
> if (console_loglevel && CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC)
> console_loglevel = CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC;
>
>
> Just imagine that you are a distributor, developer or admin:
>
> What value you would choose for CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC?
> What console loglevel will be used at the end?
>
> The answer depends on the implemented alhorith, console_loglevel,
> and CONFIG_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_PANIC.
>
> The answer would be much easier if "no_verbose_console_panic" is
> used instead.
Thanks for your replies, Petr, I'll send v2 with the function rename
patch and a patch to introduce this boot option, after the merge window
closes. I appreciate your inputs :-)
Thanks,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists