On Thu 2017-02-02 16:37:53, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2017-02-02 15:05:38, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (02/01/17 11:06), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > [..]
> > > > static void printk_safe_flush_line(const char *text, int len)
> > > > {
> > > > /*
> > > > - * The buffers are flushed in NMI only on panic. The messages
> > > > must
> > > > - * go only into the ring buffer at this stage. Consoles will
> > > > get
> > > > - * explicitly called later when a crashdump is not generated.
> > > > + * Avoid any console drivers calls from here, because we may be
> > > > + * in NMI or printk_safe context (when in panic). The messages
> > > > + * must go only into the ring buffer at this stage. Consoles
> > > > will
> > > > + * get explicitly called later when a crashdump is not
> > > > generated.
> > > > */
> > > > - if (in_nmi())
> > > > - printk_deferred("%.*s", len, text);
> > > > - else
> > > > - printk("%.*s", len, text);
> > > > + printk_deferred("%.*s", len, text);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > The helper function was there because of the if statement. Just nuke
> > > this function and call printk_deferred() directly. You can move the
> > > comment to the caller.
> >
> > indeed. thanks.
> >
> > Petr, how would you prefer to handle this?
>
> I am still learning how to manage the patches in the printk.git tree.
>
> I would like to add Steven's Reviewed-by tags, links to the mails,
> and list of CC-ed people. IMHO, the only way is to rebase the for-4.11
> and for-next branches. Then I could do the above suggested change during
> the rebase.
Alternatively you could send this other solution as a replay to this
thread. Then we could comment, add reviewed tags. And I could use
the new approved variant during the rebase.
This is probably better approach for non-oneliner changes.
> Any other solutions are welcome. I will wait with the rebase at least
> until Monday. We are discussing the lockdep in the 6th patch anyway.
Best Regards,
Petr
