Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200717234818.8622-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <CAHk-=wivdy6-i=iqJ1ZG9YrRzaS0_LHHEPwb9KJg-S8i-Wm30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <87blkcanps.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <20200811160551.GC12903@alley>
 <20200812163908.GH12903@alley> <87v9hn2y1p.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <20200813051853.GA510@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> <875z9nvvl2.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <20200813084136.GK12903@alley> <20200813115435.GB483@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20200813115435.GB483@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:46:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjoRWDAGkeevWtxR73vMimYfzJt13yFqTqv=7BGb0cuAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: POC: Alternative solution: Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: reimplement
 LOG_CONT handling
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 4:54 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think what Linus said a long time ago was that the initial purpose of
> pr_cont was
>
>         pr_info("Initialize feature foo...");
>         if (init_feature_foo() == 0)
>                 pr_cont("ok\n");
>         else
>                 pr_cont("not ok\n");
>
>         And if init_feature_foo() crashes the kernel then the first printk()
>         form panic() will flush the cont buffer.

Right.

This is why I think any discussion that says "people should buffer
their lines themselves and we should get rid if pr_cont()" is
fundamentally broken.

Don't go down that hole. I won't take it. It's wrong.

The fact is, pr_cont() goes back to the original kernel. No, it wasn't
pr_cont() back then, and no, there were no actual explicit markers for
"this is a continuation" at all, it was all just "the last printk
didn't have a newline, so we continue where we left off".

We've added pr_cont (and KERN_CONT) since then, and I realize that a
lot of people hate the complexity it introduces, but it's a
fundamental complexity that you have to live with.

If you can't live with pr_cont(), you shouldn't be working on
printk(), and find some other area of the kernel that you _can_ live
with.

It really is that simple.

            Linus