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:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:53:34 -0500
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Lech Perczak <l.perczak@camlintechnologies.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Drobi=C5=84ski?= 
        <k.drobinski@camlintechnologies.com>,
        Pawel Lenkow <p.lenkow@camlintechnologies.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in v4.19.106 breaking waking up of readers of
 /proc/kmsg and /dev/kmsg
Message-ID: <20200228205334.GF101220@mit.edu>
References: <aa0732c6-5c4e-8a8b-a1c1-75ebe3dca05b@camlintechnologies.com>
 <20200227123633.GB962932@kroah.com>
 <42d3ce5c-5ffe-8e17-32a3-5127a6c7c7d8@camlintechnologies.com>
 <e9358218-98c9-2866-8f40-5955d093dc1b@camlintechnologies.com>
 <20200228031306.GO122464@google.com>
 <20200228100416.6bwathdtopwat5wy@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20200228105836.GA2913504@kroah.com>
 <20200228113214.kew4xi5tkbo7bpou@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20200228130217.rj6qge2en26bdp7b@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200228130217.rj6qge2en26bdp7b@pathway.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 02:02:17PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 
> So, I would still prefer to _revert_ the commit 15341b1dd409749f
> ("char/random: silence a lockdep splat with printk()"). It calmed
> down lockdep report. The real life danger is dubious. The warning
> is printed early when the system is running on single CPU where
> it could not race.

I'm wondering now if we should revert this commit before 5.6 comes out
(it landed in 5.6-rc1).  "Is much less likely to happen given the
other random initialization patches" is not the same as "guaranteed
not to happen".

What do folks think?

						- Ted