Re: [RFC PATCH v1] panic: Flush unsafe consoles before panic reboot

[Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>]

On 15/09/2026 19:49, Bradley Morgan wrote:
> Hey, I think thisll conflict with the arch_do_panic() patch (b45d6e4b3580)

Ahh I see it here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260831-arch_do_panic-v6-0-a1e170a9e7fd@linux.ibm.com/

And looks like it's in Andrew's mm-nonmm-unstable branch. I guess I should
repost based on that branch?

> 
> Once you rebase. I'd reckon the
> change shrinks to just moving the panic_timeout != 0 block below
> nbcon_atomic_flush_unsafe().

I think I'll also want to make the call to arch_do_panic() conditional on
(panic_timeout == 0) so it's equivalent to the patch I sent?

> 
> On your RFC question, whether the current behavior is deliberate: I
> don't think it is. nbcon_atomic_flush_unsafe() was placed at the end of
> vpanic() by 5dde3b735413 as a final attempt to flush pending messages, and
> at
> that point no console was actually CON_NBCON_ATOMIC_UNSAFE, netconsole
> was still legacy. There was nothing to lose by putting it last. The
> ordering only became a bug once the first unsafe console showed up.
> John and Petr can confirm, but I found no sign anyone chose this.

OK great; I'll wait a few days for others to chime in, otherwise I'll plan to
repost based on mm-nonmm-unstable, dropping the RFC tag.

Thanks,
Ryan


> 
>  
> --- Thanks!
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/EE579805-42F2-4C58-B752-F28779EEB717@grrlz.net/