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:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 00:26:46 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        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 v2 4/5] printk: Add per-console suspended state
Message-ID: <20230711152646.GE12154@google.com>
References: <20230710134524.25232-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20230710134524.25232-5-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20230711150819.GC12154@google.com>
 <877cr6pj40.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877cr6pj40.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On (23/07/11 17:29), John Ogness wrote:
[..]
> > Interesting. console_locked previously would not be set if
> > console is suspended, but now it's always set, which in theory
> > changes the way WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED() macro works in some
> > cases?
> 
> Yes, Petr mentioned [0] this during the v1 review. His direct comment:
> 
>   "console_locked" seems to be used only in WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED().
>   I could imagine a corner case where, for example, "vt" code does
>   not print the warning because it works as it works. But it does
>   not make much sense. IMHO, such a code should get fixed. And it
>   is just a warning after all.
> 
> And his final comment in that thread:
> 
>   I believe that @console_suspended is not longer needed.
>   Let's replace it with the per-console flag and do not worry
>   about races.

Oh, thanks for the pointers!

> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZAieQtcs7YEuCCDa@alley