On Thu 2016-01-21 12:30:07, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Wed 2016-01-20 13:17:13, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:20:48 +0100 Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > this is just a quick respin of the previous version. It changes > > > the few details as you suggested. Also it fixes the build problem > > > on ARM as reported by Geert and Arnd. > > > > > > I rather send the whole patch set because there is the renamed header. > > > Also the extra blank space affects two patches. I hope that it will > > > safe you some work. Please, let me know if you would prefer > > > incremental patches. > > > > > > > > > Changes against v3: > > > > > > + used size_t for "len" and "size" > > > > > > + replaced WARN() with pr_err() > > > > > > + renamed kernel/printk/printk.h -> internal.h > > > > > > + fixed build on ARM (undefined NMI_LOG_BUF_SHIFT) > > > > So the review of the v3 patchset was ... inconclusive. And everyone has > > gone quiet about v4. > > > > Probably because you didn't cc the V3 discussion participants when > > sending out V4. Big mistake, sorry, I can't check everything! > > Ah, v4 was sent too fast after v3 before others reacted. It included > rather cosmetic changes based on your (Andrew's) feedback. > > > > But v4 is basically unaltered from v3 so can we please rev this up > > again? yay or nay? Thanks. > > The patch set prevents deadlocks that happen in a real life. It > increases a chance to get a valid crash dump when NMI is involved. > > It does not handle well the situation when NMI is involved and > the crash dump could not get produced. But this is not handled > well even now. As Peter Zijlstra writes this a usually a real > mess when he needs to use special hacks (early_printk) anyway. > > I still believe that the patch set makes sense and is acceptable > as is.
Is anyone against getting this into the mainline for 4.6, please? Best Regards, Petr
