[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YiOYPvleCsTT9vGu@zx2c4.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 10:05:02 -0700
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 03/13] printk: use percpu flag instead of
cpu_online()
Hi Petr,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:56:55PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Just for record, the right commit ID in the mainline is
> 1b710b1b10eff9d466. It used printk_deferred() in _warn_unseeded_randomness():
>
> --- a/drivers/char/random.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/random.c
> @@ -1687,8 +1687,9 @@ static void _warn_unseeded_randomness(const char *func_name, void *caller,
> print_once = true;
> #endif
> if (__ratelimit(&unseeded_warning))
> - pr_notice("random: %s called from %pS with crng_init=%d\n",
> - func_name, caller, crng_init);
> + printk_deferred(KERN_NOTICE "random: %s called from %pS "
> + "with crng_init=%d\n", func_name, caller,
> + crng_init);
> }
Are we able to revert this yet? Or is it still required because of
locking issues? Would gladly take a patch to revert that if the
non-deferred function is fine for 5.18.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists