Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 12:26:23 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Cc:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/18] kdb: do not assume write() callback
 available
Message-ID: <ZAnCXxui+QiNNRb6@alley>
References: <20230302195618.156940-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20230302195618.156940-2-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20230309105240.GA83039@aspen.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230309105240.GA83039@aspen.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 2023-03-09 10:52:40, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 09:02:01PM +0106, John Ogness wrote:
> > It is allowed for consoles to provide no write() callback. For
> > example ttynull does this.
> >
> > Check if a write() callback is available before using it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
> 
> Any thoughts on best way to land the series. All via one tree or can
> we pick and mix?

I would prefer to take everything via the printk tree because
most changes are there. Otherwise, we might end up with non-necessary
cross-tree merge conflicts. Also I would know when all pieces are
there.

That said, this seems to be the only change in
kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c and it is relatively independent.
So, it should not be a big problem to take it separately.

Best Regards,
Petr