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;
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:25:12 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        john.ogness@linutronix.de,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] printk: fix deadlock when kernel panic
Message-ID: <YCNECIizrMwtjAW2@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20210206054124.6743-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
 <YCDcAy39BbPItdGY@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <CAMZfGtVBVSuH=HGNs7KFOtixSviy_stoZsiG4au0RUkUnH-0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YCE4tIrz/u/RkDc/@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <CAMZfGtX-bHXoF_4rU+WzDNp+LmZj3CHWmurEvjCZBCyM2uiDMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YCJKRnBXjTNWRBZ7@alley>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YCJKRnBXjTNWRBZ7@alley>
Precedence: bulk

On (21/02/09 09:39), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > So then this never re-inits the safe_read_lock?
> 
> Yes, but it will also not cause the deadlock.

Right.

> I prefer this approach. It is straightforward because it handles
> read_lock the same way as logbuf_lock.

I'm fine with that approach, but this needs to be in the commit message.
Something like "lose printk_safe message when we think we will deadlock
on printk_safe flush".

	-ss