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 S1751522AbdHPGzb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:55:31 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:38636 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750904AbdHPGza (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:55:30 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:55:45 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv5 07/13] printk: register syscore notifier
Message-ID: <20170816065545.GA522@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20170815025625.1977-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20170815025625.1977-8-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <1616919.1QsxM0VBqp@aspire.rjw.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1616919.1QsxM0VBqp@aspire.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (08/15/17 13:56), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[..]
> > +static int printk_syscore_suspend(void)
> > +{
> > +	printk_emergency_begin();
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> Somebody looking at suspend/resume code paths only will be wondering why
> you need this, because we should be in the emergency mode already when
> it is called.
> 
> It would be good to add a comment about the kexec context here.

ok, will add.

> > +static void printk_syscore_resume(void)
> > +{
> > +	printk_emergency_end();
> > +}
> 
> This will turn the emergency mode off during resume before the notifier
> added by the previous patch AFAICS.  Is this intentional?

emergency modes can nest. so it's OK to have

	printk_emergency_begin()   +1   // on
	  printk_emergency_begin()   +1
	  printk_emergency_end()     -1
	printk_emergency_end()     -1   // off

or did I misunderstand your question?

	-ss