[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YS2AMIQGPDR0Ve57@google.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:04:48 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 05/10] printk: call boot_delay_msec() in
printk_delay()
On (21/08/03 15:18), John Ogness wrote:
> boot_delay_msec() is always called immediately before printk_delay()
> so just call it from within printk_delay().
[..]
Interesting. Apparently boot_delay_msec() does not do anything
if suppress_message_printing(level). I wonder if we want a similar
thing for printk_delay() as well. Otherwise we have some imbalance in
behaviour.
IOW,
> @@ -1222,10 +1222,8 @@ static void boot_delay_msec(int level)
> unsigned long long k;
> unsigned long timeout;
>
>- if ((boot_delay == 0 || system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
>- || suppress_message_printing(level)) {
>+ if (boot_delay == 0 || system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
> return;
>- }
>
> k = (unsigned long long)loops_per_msec * boot_delay;
[..]
> +static inline void printk_delay(int level)
> {
+ if (suppress_message_printing(level))
+ return;
> + boot_delay_msec(level);
> +
> if (unlikely(printk_delay_msec)) {
> int m = printk_delay_msec;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists