[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAnCXxui+QiNNRb6@alley>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 12:26:23 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
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,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/18] kdb: do not assume write() callback
available
On Thu 2023-03-09 10:52:40, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 09:02:01PM +0106, John Ogness wrote:
> > It is allowed for consoles to provide no write() callback. For
> > example ttynull does this.
> >
> > Check if a write() callback is available before using it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
>
> Any thoughts on best way to land the series. All via one tree or can
> we pick and mix?
I would prefer to take everything via the printk tree because
most changes are there. Otherwise, we might end up with non-necessary
cross-tree merge conflicts. Also I would know when all pieces are
there.
That said, this seems to be the only change in
kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c and it is relatively independent.
So, it should not be a big problem to take it separately.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists