Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] console: don't select first registered console if stdout-path used

2017-09-05 Thread Petr Mladek
On Mon 2017-08-28 19:58:07, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote: > In the current implementation we take the first console that > registers if we didn't select one. > > But if we specify console via "stdout-path" property in device tree > we don't want first console that registers here to be selected. >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] console: don't select first registered console if stdout-path used

2017-11-07 Thread Petr Mladek
Hi Eigeniy, I am sorry for the late response. The problem is far from trivial. I am getting snowed under many other tasks as well. On Wed 2017-09-06 17:57:18, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote: > Hi Petr, > > On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 16:54 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Mon 2017-08-28 19

Re: [PATCH 00/13] replace print_symbol() with printk()-s

2018-01-05 Thread Petr Mladek
On Fri 2018-01-05 19:21:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/05/18 11:03), Petr Mladek wrote: > [..] > > Anyway, print_symbol() is an old weird API and it would be nice > > to eventually get rid of it. I could take this patches into > > printk.git. > > no object

Re: [PATCH 00/13] replace print_symbol() with printk()-s

2018-01-05 Thread Petr Mladek
On Fri 2018-01-05 21:23:34, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/05/18 21:01), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > [..] > > but, print_symbol() is compiled out on !CONFIG_KALLSYMS systems. so, > > basically, we compile out some of errors print outs; even more, on ia64 > > ia64_do_show_stack() does nothing

Re: [PATCH 00/13] replace print_symbol() with printk()-s

2018-01-05 Thread Petr Mladek
On Fri 2018-01-05 19:25:38, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/05/18 19:21), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (01/05/18 11:03), Petr Mladek wrote: > > [..] > > > Anyway, print_symbol() is an old weird API and it would be nice > > > to eventually get rid

Re: [PATCH 00/13] replace print_symbol() with printk()-s

2018-01-16 Thread Petr Mladek
On Mon 2018-01-08 11:09:42, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/05/18 15:42), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > I am all for it. But I would postpone this removal to 4.17. > > The reason is rather ugly. 13th patch is already in arc tree. > > We would need to shuffle the patch

Re: [PATCH 21/21] memblock: drop memblock_alloc_*_nopanic() variants

2019-01-17 Thread Petr Mladek
On Wed 2019-01-16 15:44:21, Mike Rapoport wrote: > As all the memblock allocation functions return NULL in case of error > rather than panic(), the duplicates with _nopanic suffix can be removed. [...] > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c > index c4f0a41..ae65221 100644

Re: [PATCH v2 21/21] memblock: drop memblock_alloc_*_nopanic() variants

2019-01-30 Thread Petr Mladek
t; include/linux/memblock.h | 35 --- > kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 2 +- > kernel/printk/printk.c | 9 +---- For printk: Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek Acked-by: Petr Mladek Best Regards, Petr > mm/memblock.c | 35 --

Re: [PATCH 00/50] Add log level to show_stack()

2019-11-11 Thread Petr Mladek
On Mon 2019-11-11 10:23:36, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (19/11/08 14:04), Petr Mladek wrote: > [..] > > I agree that it is complicated to pass the loglevel as > > a parameter. It would be better define the default > > log level for a given code section. It might be s

Re: [PATCH 00/50] Add log level to show_stack()

2019-11-06 Thread Petr Mladek
On Wed 2019-11-06 03:04:51, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > Add log level argument to show_stack(). > Done in three stages: > 1. Introducing show_stack_loglvl() for every architecture > 2. Migrating old users with an explicit log level > 3. Renaming show_stack_loglvl() into show_stack() > >

Re: [PATCH 00/50] Add log level to show_stack()

2019-11-12 Thread Petr Mladek
On Tue 2019-11-12 13:57:04, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (19/11/12 13:44), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > [..] > > > But yes, this per-code-section loglevel is problematic. The feedback > > > against the patchset shows that people want it also the other way. > > > I mean to keep pr_debug() as

Re: [PATCH 00/50] Add log level to show_stack()

2019-11-08 Thread Petr Mladek
On Fri 2019-11-08 19:37:19, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (19/11/06 09:35), Petr Mladek wrote: > > I agree with all the other justification. > > > > I would add. The backtrace is really useful for debugging. It should > > be possible to print it even in less criti

Re: ARC no console output (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] init/console: Use ttynull as a fallback when there is no console)

2021-01-07 Thread Petr Mladek
On Thu 2021-01-07 08:43:16, Vineet Gupta wrote: > Hi John, > > On 1/7/21 1:02 AM, John Ogness wrote: > > Hi Vineet, > > > > On 2021-01-06, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > > This breaks ARC booting (no output on console). > > > > Could you provide the kernel boot arguments that you use? This series is

Re: ARC no console output (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] init/console: Use ttynull as a fallback when there is no console)

2021-01-07 Thread Petr Mladek
On Wed 2021-01-06 15:36:36, Vineet Gupta wrote: > +CC Buildroot folks > > Hi Petr, > > On 11/11/20 5:54 AM, Petr Mladek wrote: > > stdin, stdout, and stderr standard I/O stream are created for the init > > process. They are not available when there is no console regi

Re: ARC no console output (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] init/console: Use ttynull as a fallback when there is no console)

2021-01-08 Thread Petr Mladek
On Thu 2021-01-07 21:18:20, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 1/7/21 7:48 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (21/01/07 09:58), Vineet Gupta wrote: > > > On 1/7/21 9:04 AM, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > On Thu 2021-01-07 08:43:16, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > > > > Hi