On (20/07/20 11:30), Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Do I get it right, what you are saying is - when we process a PR_CONT
> > message the cont buffer should already contain previous non-LOG_NEWLINE
> > and non-PR_CONT message, otherwise it's a bug?
>
> No.
>
> I'm saying that the code that does PR_CONT should have done *some*
> printing before, otherwise it's at the very least questionable.
>
> IOW, you can't just randomly start printing with PR_CONT, without
> having established _some_ context for it.
OK, I see. I sort of suspect that we may actually have code that does
just pr_cont() (e.g. what Joe pointed out). It doesn't seem like that
"establish a context" was ever enforced, doing a bunch of pr_cont()
simply works.
[..]
> That said, we have traditionally used not just "current process", but
> also "last irq-level" as the context information, so I do think it
> would be good to continue to do that.
OK, so basically, extending printk_caller_id() so that for IRQ/NMI
we will have more info than just "0x80000000 + raw_smp_processor_id()".
-ss
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
