On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:54:01 +0100 Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote:
I'll put my $0.02 in, and say I like the idea of the patch too. > > > Thoughts: > > > > > > - why do the suppression in vprintk_emit()? Doing it right at entry > > > to printk() seems cleaner, more explicit? > > > > Yes, I put it in printk() in one earlier post, and Petr suggested to > > put it into vprintk_emit so that it works for all printk() interfaces, > > like the devkmsg_write -> printk_emit -> vprintk_emit path. > > Yes, there are more printk interfaces. The check in vprintk_emit() > allows to calm down also prink_deferred() and dev_printk(). Agreed. > > > > - Other code sites may wish to suppress all printks. Perhaps > > > `panic_suppress_printk' should just be called `suppress_printk'? > > Ok, then I'll move the definition from panic.c to printk code. > > This change looks fine to me. > > Best Regards, > Petr > > PS: I am sorry for the late review. I have spent many days with > reviewing a proposal of rewrite of printk() internals. Thanks for doing that, BTW. -- Steve
