Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:24:38 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        SergeySenozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LinusTorvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        PraritBhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: printk meeting at LPC
Message-ID: <20190924142438.fjicbolo2xmgn4t7@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20190918012546.GA12090@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190917220849.17a1226a@oasis.local.home>
 <20190918023654.GB15380@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190918051933.GA220683@jagdpanzerIV>
 <87h85anj85.fsf@linutronix.de>
 <20190918081012.GB37041@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190918081012.GB37041@jagdpanzerIV>
 <877e66nfdz.fsf@linutronix.de>
 <20190918164155.ymyuro6u442fa22j@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20190918124801.04fe999d@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190918124801.04fe999d@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 2019-09-18 12:48:01, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:41:55 +0200
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> > Regarding SysRq. I could imagine introducing another SysRq that
> > would just call panic(). I mean that it would try to flush the
> > logs and reboot in the most safe way.
> 
> You mean sysrq-c ?

Sysrq-c is confusing because the NULL pointer dereference is reported.
I meant a completely new sysrq that would just call panic() without
an artificial noise.

Hmm, sysrq is already using most of the keys. sysrq-c might be good enough
after all.

Best Regards,
Petr