Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v2 3/4] printk: Skip unfinalized records in panic
In-Reply-To: <87mswh6iwq.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
References: <20231013204340.1112036-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20231013204340.1112036-4-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <ZS5vrte2OZXcIc9L@alley> <87mswh6iwq.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:30:46 +0206
Message-ID: <877cnk72y9.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-10-17, John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>> -	if (!prb_read_valid(prb, seq, &r))
>>> -		return false;
>>> +	while (!prb_read_valid(prb, seq, &r)) {
>>> +		if (this_cpu_in_panic() && seq < prb_next_seq(prb)) {
>>> +			/*
>>> +			 * The record @seq is not finalized and there may be

I am wondering if we should put the this_cpu_in_panic() check into
_prb_read_valid() instead. This has the advantage that it could more
intelligently skip non-finalized records and not need to rely on
prb_next_seq(). Also, it would allow any other readers (kmsg_dump) to
skip non-finalized records during panic.

Looking over the code, it would be easy to extend
desc_read_finalized_seq() to return a separate error code for exists but
is non-finalized. This would make it trivial for _prb_read_valid() to
skip over it when this_cpu_in_panic().

John