[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8735i6h430.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:08:43 +0206
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v3 00/15] printk/for-next
On 2022-04-21, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> This series looks almost ready for linux-next. The only real
> problems are:
>
> + Use allow_direct_printing() instead of
> atomic_read(&printk_prefer_direct) in defer_console_output()
>
> + "temporary" remove
> console_lock_single_hold()/console_lock_single_release() and
> use the full console_lock()/console_unlock() instead.
>
> The rest are few cosmetic issues.
>
> I would like to push this into linux-next ASAP so that we get some
> wider testing of this approach. I do not expect that we could find
> much more issues just by staring into the code ;-)
>
> Now, the question is whether I should wait for v4. Or whether
> I should put v3 into linux-next with a follow up patch doing
> the two above suggested changes. They are quite trivial.
>
> Anyway, if I pushed v3+fixup then I would replace it with v4, v5, ...
> once they are available. I just do not want to block testing because
> of cosmetic problems.
Even though the fixup may be straight-forward, it would be touching a
lot of lines and could potentially introduce new problems. I prefer you
wait for a v4 so that there is no mess to clean up.
I can post a v4 tomorrow (using option #1 from [0] as the
synchronization alternative).
John
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/r/875yn2h5ku.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de
Powered by blists - more mailing lists