From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753083AbcLLP2s (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:28:48 -0500
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:35811 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752117AbcLLP2r (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:28:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:28:36 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv5 3/7] printk: introduce per-cpu safe_print seq
 buffer
Message-ID: <20161212152836.GB2118@tigerII.localdomain>
References: <20161201135546.15549-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20161201135546.15549-4-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20161209164625.GL3506@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20161210031022.GA493@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20161212135418.GN3506@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161212135418.GN3506@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (12/12/16 14:54), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > > Hmm, I wanted to describe why we need another per-CPU buffer in NMI
> > > and I am not sure that we really need it.
> > 
> > NMI-printk can interrupt safe-printk's vsnprintf() in the middle of
> > the "while (*fmt)" loop: safe-priNMI-PRINTK
> 
> But this already happens when any of the WARNs is triggered
> inside vsnprintf(). Either this is safe or we are in
> trouble.
[..]
> Well, I am not sure if we should bother.

well, I'd probably agree that we shouldn't care. I'd may be even
say that nested warnings from vsnprintf() are not so important to
over-complicated everything (comparing to lost NMI-printk messages,
which are really important).


> Well, is it that bad to ask for better comments?

ok, I'll take a look. gotta re-base the series once again anyway.

> Or am I dumb and it was all obvious?

of course no! I never said that. never! :)
my apologies.

	-ss