Re: [PATCH -printk] printk, tracing: fix console tracepoint

[Marco Elver]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 16:51, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed 2022-05-04 11:46:36, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2022-05-03 21:20:44, John Ogness wrote:
> > > On 2022-05-03, Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > One notable difference is that by moving tracing into printk_sprint(),
> > > > the 'text' will no longer include the "header" (loglevel and timestamp),
> > > > but only the raw message. Arguably this is less of a problem now that
> > > > the console tracepoint happens on the printk() call and isn't delayed.
> > >
> > > Another slight difference is that messages composed of LOG_CONT pieces
> > > will trigger the tracepoint for each individual piece and _never_ as a
> > > complete line.
> > >
> > > It was never guaranteed that all LOG_CONT pieces make it into the final
> > > printed line anyway, but with this change it will be guaranteed that
> > > they are always handled separately.
> > >
> > > I am OK with this change, but like Steven, I agree the the users of that
> > > tracepoint need to chime in.
> >
> > My feeling is that the feature is not used much. Otherwise people
> > would complain that it was asynchronous and hard to use.
> >
> > I mean that the printk() messages appeared in the trace log
> > asynchronously. So it required some post processing to correctly
> > sort them against other tracing messages. The same result can be
> > achieved by processing printk log buffer, dmesg.log, journalctl.
> >
> > I guess that we will only find the answer when we push the change
> > into linux-next and mainline. I am going to do so.
>
> JFYI, the patch has been committed into printk/linux.git,
> branch rework/kthreads.

Thank you, sounds good.

Thanks,
-- Marco