Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] printk: Add force_con printk flag to not suppress sysrq header msgs

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 04:57:36PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2024-11-05 16:45:07, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This is the second version of the patchset. It now addresses comments
> > from John and Petr, while also mentioning that the current work solves
> > one issue on handle_sysrq when the printk messages are deferred.
> > 
> > The original cover-letter in is the v1.
> > 
> > Please review!
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Mentioned that it fixes a bug related to loglevel= dance (suggested by John)
> > - Changed to loud_con to FORCE_CON (John, Petr)
> > - Don't skip printk delay if FORCE_CON is specified (John)
> > - Set FORCE_CON when LOG_CONT is handled (John)
> > - Changed force_con from a per-CPU variable to a global variable because
> >   we can't disable migration on the callsites. (John, Petr)
> > - Used is_printk_force_console() on boot_delay_msec(), since it's used
> >   when the message is stored, instead of setting is as an argument.
> > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241016-printk-loud-con-v1-0-065e4dad6632@xxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > Marcos Paulo de Souza (2):
> >       printk: Introduce FORCE_CON flag
> >       tty: sysrq: Use printk_force_console context on __handle_sysrq
> 
> The patchset looks ready for linux-next from my POV. I am going to
> push it there tomorrow or on Monday unless anyone complains.
> 
> There was some bike-shedding about the code style in the reviews.
> But the proposals did not look like a big win. I think that it
> is not worth a respin.

No objection from me!

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>