On Sat 2016-10-08 03:59:20, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/06/16 17:41), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > > + if (this_cpu_read(alt_printk_ctx) & ALT_PRINTK_RECURSION_MASK) {
> > > + const char *msg = "BUG: recent printk recursion!\n";
> > > +
> > > + this_cpu_and(alt_printk_ctx, ~ALT_PRINTK_RECURSION_MASK);
> > > + alt_printk_flush_line(msg, strlen(msg));
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * This is just a paranoid check that nobody has manipulated
> > > * the buffer an unexpected way. If we printed something then
> > > @@ -290,6 +297,8 @@ static int vprintk_alt(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> > > {
> > > struct alt_printk_seq_buf *s = this_cpu_ptr(&alt_print_seq);
> > >
> > > + /* There is only one way to get here -- a printk recursion. */
> > > + this_cpu_or(alt_printk_ctx, ALT_PRINTK_RECURSION_MASK);
> >
> > Is it really a bug? In most cases, the message that is being printed
> > describes a bug. We just allow to print it this alternative way to
> > avoid a possible deadlock. IMHO, this might cause a confusion.
>
> just wanted to preserve the existing behavior, but can drop it.
I see. Well, the current code drops the original message if there is a
recursion and there is no oops_in_progress. Therefore the warning
is the only way to know that a message was lost. But we store
the original message in the alternative buffer now. Therefore
it is not longer lost.
Best Regards,
Petr
