On (04/17/19 11:18), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > My instant thought would be put the console_unlcok() and similar funcs
> > under CONFIG_PRINTK protection, while adding nop functions in the "else"
> > segment.
> >
> > But complexer question will be when CONFIG_PRINTK=n, how those console_xxx
> > functions should consider these to make compiled binary smaller (though it
> > rarely happens). would wait for Petr/Sergey/Steven's insights.
>
> I guess that it is because console_sem is historically used to
> synchronize some unrelated things, espcially in tty code.
> Unfortunately, it is not easy to clean this up.
>
> For this patch, the best solution seems to be using scnprintf()
> instead of sprintf().
OK, since we have another chance to re-iterate this. Do we really
want to complicate console_unlock() printing loop any further?
Asking off chance, can we return back to the idea of adding enum
FLUSH_PENDING/FLUSH_ALL to console_flush_on_panic()?
Does not look too complex/ugly.
---
-void console_flush_on_panic(void)
+void console_flush_on_panic(enum console_flush_mode flush_mode)
{
/*
* If someone else is holding the console lock, trylock will fail
@@ -2549,6 +2549,10 @@ void console_flush_on_panic(void)
*/
console_trylock();
console_may_schedule = 0;
+ if (flush_mode == FLUSH_ALL) {
+ console_seq = log_first_seq;
+ console_idx = log_first_idx;
+ }
console_unlock();
}
---
-ss
