Re: [PATCH printk v3 00/15] printk/for-next

[John Ogness]

On 2022-04-21, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This series looks almost ready for linux-next. The only real
> problems are:
>
>    + Use allow_direct_printing() instead of
>      atomic_read(&printk_prefer_direct) in defer_console_output()
>
>    + "temporary" remove
>      console_lock_single_hold()/console_lock_single_release() and
>      use the full console_lock()/console_unlock() instead.
>
> The rest are few cosmetic issues.
>
> I would like to push this into linux-next ASAP so that we get some
> wider testing of this approach. I do not expect that we could find
> much more issues just by staring into the code ;-)
>
> Now, the question is whether I should wait for v4. Or whether
> I should put v3 into linux-next with a follow up patch doing
> the two above suggested changes. They are quite trivial.
>
> Anyway, if I pushed v3+fixup then I would replace it with v4, v5, ...
> once they are available. I just do not want to block testing because
> of cosmetic problems.

Even though the fixup may be straight-forward, it would be touching a
lot of lines and could potentially introduce new problems. I prefer you
wait for a v4 so that there is no mess to clean up.

I can post a v4 tomorrow (using option #1 from [0] as the
synchronization alternative).

John

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/r/875yn2h5ku.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx