Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 12:21:58 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v4 0/8] printk: cleanup buffer handling
Message-ID: <Y7gEVpMTvI0WzPH7@alley>
References: <20230105103735.880956-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230105103735.880956-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 2023-01-05 11:43:27, John Ogness wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is v4 of a series to cleanup console buffer handling and
> prepare for code sharing with the upcoming threaded/atomic
> consoles. v3 is here [0].
> 
> The main purpose of the series is to introduce two new lockless
> functions to handle reading and formatting of printk messages. These
> functions can then be used from any context, which is important for
> the upcoming threaded/atomic consoles. The series also helps to
> cleanup some of the internal printk interfaces and cleanly separate
> formatting code from outputting code.
> 
> John Ogness (6):
>   printk: move size limit macros into internal.h
>   printk: introduce struct printk_buffers
>   printk: introduce printk_get_next_message() and printk_message
>   printk: introduce console_prepend_dropped() for dropped messages

This patch would need a followup fix to prevent the compiler warning.

>   printk: use printk_buffers for devkmsg

This one would need respin to fix the problem with suppressed messages.

>   printk: adjust string limit macros
> 
> Thomas Gleixner (2):
>   console: Use BIT() macros for @flags values
>   console: Document struct console

The rest looks ready for linux-next.

I see three ways how to move forward:

1. Respin the entire patchset.
2. Respin only 7th patch + send the follow up fix seperately
3. Push first 6 patches and handle the rest separately.

What would be more convenient for you, please?
Honestly, I do not have any real preference.

Best Regards,
Petr