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

[John Ogness]

On 2019-09-05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>
> We should definitely be able to find a room that will be available
> next week.

FWIW, on Monday at 12:45 I am giving a talk[0] on the printk
rework. I'll be dedicating a few slides to presenting the lockless
multi-writer design, but will also talk about the serialized CPU
approach from RFCv1.

John Ogness

[0] https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/event/4/contributions/290/