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:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 19:53:48 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lech Perczak <l.perczak@camlintechnologies.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] printk: queue wake_up_klogd irq_work only if per-CPU
 areas are ready
Message-ID: <20200305185348.GB2141048@kroah.com>
References: <20200303113002.63089-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20200304152159.2p7d7dnztf433i24@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20200305013014.GA174444@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200305013014.GA174444@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 10:30:14AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/03/04 16:21), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > > Fix printk_deferred() and do not queue per-CPU irq_work
> > > before per-CPU areas are initialized.
> > >
> > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aa0732c6-5c4e-8a8b-a1c1-75ebe3dca05b@camlintechnologies.com/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
> > > Reported-by: Lech Perczak <l.perczak@camlintechnologies.com>
> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> > > Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Now, the question is whether to hurry this fix into 5.6 or if
> > it could wait for 5.7.
> >
> > I think that it could wait because 5.6 is not affected by
> > the particular printk_deferred(). This patch fixes a long-term
> > generic problem. But I am open for other opinions.
> 
> Good question. My 5 cents, I would _probably_ push it now. Not
> because it fixes any known issues on 5.6, but because we have
> a number of LTS kernel (4.19, 4.14, 4.9, 4.4, 3.16) that can be
> affected should 1b710b1b10eff9d4 be backported to those kernels.

It was backported there, and now has been reverted.  So no big rush from
what I can tell.

thanks,

greg k-h