Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The alternative lockless approach is still more complicated than
> > the serialized one. But I think that it is manageable thanks to
> > the simplified state tracking. And I might safe use some pain
> > in the long term.
> 
> I've not looked at it yet, sorry. But per the above argument of needing
> the CPU serialization _anyway_, I don't see a compelling reason not to
> use it.
> 
> It is simple, it works. Let's use it.
> 
> If you really fancy a multi-writer buffer, you can always switch to one
> later, if you can convince someone it actually brings benefits and not
> just head-aches.

Can we please grab one of the TBD slots at kernel summit next week, sit
down in a room and hash that out?

Thanks,

	tglx