From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763760AbdLSOk7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:40:59 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44320 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763741AbdLSOk4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:40:56 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8D56C20740 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:40:52 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Petr Mladek , Tejun Heo , Sergey Senozhatsky , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Rafael Wysocki , Pavel Machek , Tetsuo Handa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread Message-ID: <20171219094052.15a94379@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20171219045846.GE17164@jagdpanzerIV> References: <20171218133101.ri55uwivhc5xwg5y@pathway.suse.cz> <20171218133948.GD31274@jagdpanzerIV> <20171218141353.6shpvcwth34k6dsi@pathway.suse.cz> <20171218124613.1df152da@gandalf.local.home> <20171219010311.GB8892@jagdpanzerIV> <20171218200806.56a6507e@gandalf.local.home> <20171219012455.GB17164@jagdpanzerIV> <20171218210356.71a1f60e@vmware.local.home> <20171219024610.GC17164@jagdpanzerIV> <20171218223817.0e7f866e@vmware.local.home> <20171219045846.GE17164@jagdpanzerIV> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:58:46 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > so you are not convinced that my scenarios real/matter; I'm not Well, not with the test module. I'm looking for actual code in the upstream kernel. > convinced that I have stable and functional boards with this patch ;) > seems that we are coming to a dead end. Can I ask, is it any worse than what we have today? > > for the record, > I'm not going to block the patch if you want it to be merged. Thanks, -- Steve