Re: [PATCH v2] printk_legacy_map: use LD_WAIT_CONFIG instead of LD_WAIT_SLEEP

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

So it seems that you guys finally have a consensus on this patch ;)

Should I send v3 or will you do it? I don't care about the "From:" tag.
If you want me to do it, let me ask:

On 10/24, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> On Fri 2025-10-24 12:38:08, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >   The legacy console always acquires a spinlock_t from its printing
> >   callback. This violates lock nesting if the caller acquired an always
> >   spinning lock (raw_spinlock_t) while invoking printk(). This is not a
> >   problem on PREEMPT_RT because legacy consoles print always from a
> >   dedicated thread and never from within printk(). Therefore we tell
> >   lockdep that a sleeping spin lock (spinlock_t) is valid here.
>
> Looks good to me.

Same here. Should I replace the whole comment block above
DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(printk_legacy_map) with the text above?

> >   printk_legacy_map is used to hide lock nesting violations caused by
> >   legacy drivers and is using the wrong override type. LD_WAIT_SLEEP is
> >   for always sleeping lock types such as mutex_t. LD_WAIT_CONFIG is for
> >   lock type which are sleeping while spinning on PREEMPT_RT such as
> >   spinlock_t.
>
> Looks goot to me.

Same here. Should I add anything else into the changelog?

> JFYI, I do not mind which version is used.

Same here ;)

Oleg.