From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754835AbcJEKSy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:18:54 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54113 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1754311AbcJEKSw (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:18:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:18:50 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] printk: use alternative printk buffers
Message-ID: <20161005101850.GC23809@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20160927142237.5539-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160927142237.5539-7-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160929130000.GE26796@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20160930011544.GC547@swordfish>
 <20160930111546.GI26796@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20161001024829.GB527@swordfish>
 <20161004122226.GE13369@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20161005013657.GB9539@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161005013657.GB9539@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed 2016-10-05 10:36:57, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/04/16 14:22), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > 	if (retry && console_trylock())
> > 		goto again;
> > 
> > with a safe variant, something like
> > 
> > 	if (retry) {
> > 		local_irq_save(flags);
> > 		alt_printk_enter();
> > 		lock_failed = console_trylock();
> > 		alt_printk_exit();
> > 		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > 
> > 		if (!lock_failed)
> > 			goto again;
> > 	}
> > 
> > Or do I miss anything?
> 
> nope, you don't. that's close to what I do in v3.
> 
> > I am going to look at the second version of the patchset.
> 
> thanks a lot for your review!
> 
> I'll refresh the patch set a bit later this week. I think it's more
> or less in shape now.... well, still under the old name: alt_printk.

Note that I have stopped reviewing v2 after realizing that it
did not help to get rid of printk_deferred().

I would like to revisit the usefulness of this approach first.
The motivation at
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160928011845.GA753@swordfish
does not longer fly. We will still need to maintain all
the printk_deferred()/WARN_*DEFERRED calls.

Also let me to reply to the mail
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160930004832.GA547@swordfish
The examples do not look real to me.

I am not sure what is the real group of fixed problems
at the moment.

I am sad when writing this. I was really optimistic
about this patchset.

Best Regards,
Petr