Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add printk maintainers

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:23:36 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
> > If all printks are asynchronous, that will be unreliable information.  
> 
> No, that will be _no_ information, since the 'later' part that does the
> flush will never happen.

I meant what would be unreliable, is that the printk that was last
shown will not be the last printk that was called. I'm sure you may get
some printks. But not those that were queued and not printed when the
bug happens. But I think we are just saying the same thing.

> 
> > And really, that information can be extremely useful, but only if it is
> > reliable, otherwise, it becomes useless.  
> 
> Well, if you want reliable get a UART and those 3 patches I did to force
> early_printk :-)
> 

I have my own version too ;-)  But yours is a bit cleaner than mine, so
I may take them instead. I believe the force early_printk is in the -rt
patchset. We just need the locking code in there too.

-- Steve