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

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2022-03-14 15:49:39, John Ogness wrote:
> 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 am really sorry for this. And some my mails also were a bit
misleading because I missed something in the code.

One small plus is that most of the new names were mentioned
in the public https://lore.kernel.org/r/YhYKP/UuSKENGwfj@alley
But I agree that I probably made it more confusing than needed.


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

Yes, sending v2 and continuing the discussion sounds like a good idea.

Best Regards,
Petr