Re: [PATCH printk v1 11/13] printk: reimplement console_lock for proper kthread support

[John Ogness]

On 2022-03-14, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My intention is to keep the logic as simple and as clear as possible:
>
>        + if we need lock then use lock
>
>        + if we need trylock then use trylock
>
>        + if we want direct mode then block kthreads and try enter
> 	 the direct mode ASAP.
>
>        + if kthreads mode is allowed then do nothing in
> 	 console_unlock() and leave the job to kthreads.
>
>        + console_lock() temporarily blocks kthreads but
> 	 it handle messages only when direct mode is enforced.

Thank you for your examples, detailed analysis, insight, and summaries.

This particular review became quite complicated because offline you sent
me a heavily revised version. Several of your comments are criticizing
your version and not the actual series I posted. For v2 we need to
handle it better so that the list has a chance at following our
discussion. ;-)

I will post a v2 that attempts to address your concerns and try to frame
the naming and structures to align with your suggestions.

John