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:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:04:48 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 05/10] printk: call boot_delay_msec() in
 printk_delay()
Message-ID: <YS2AMIQGPDR0Ve57@google.com>
References: <20210803131301.5588-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20210803131301.5588-6-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210803131301.5588-6-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On (21/08/03 15:18), John Ogness wrote:
> boot_delay_msec() is always called immediately before printk_delay()
> so just call it from within printk_delay().

[..]

Interesting. Apparently boot_delay_msec() does not do anything
if suppress_message_printing(level). I wonder if we want a similar
thing for printk_delay() as well. Otherwise we have some imbalance in
behaviour.

IOW,

> @@ -1222,10 +1222,8 @@ static void boot_delay_msec(int level)
>        unsigned long long k;
>        unsigned long timeout;
> 
>-       if ((boot_delay == 0 || system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
>-               || suppress_message_printing(level)) {
>+       if (boot_delay == 0 || system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
>                return;
>-       }
> 
>        k = (unsigned long long)loops_per_msec * boot_delay;

[..]

> +static inline void printk_delay(int level)
>  {

+	if (suppress_message_printing(level))
+		return;

> +	boot_delay_msec(level);
> +
>  	if (unlikely(printk_delay_msec)) {
>  		int m = printk_delay_msec;
>