Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:09:12 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] console: Replace #if 1 with a bool to ignore WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED() |
| |
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:58:48 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:
> On (07/11/18 15:17), Steven Rostedt wrote: > > +bool ignore_console_lock_warning __read_mostly; > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ignore_console_lock_warning); > > OK. So, to recap, > We made is_console_locked() EXPORT_SYMBOL recently [it's still in linux-next], > so people could use WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED in more places; this made other > people unhappy, so now we add another EXPORT_SYMBOL to the picture, which will > disable those newly added WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED and make other people happy > again.
Note, it only made people that added a module parameter that disables grabbing the console lock in the first place for debugging purposes only. The added WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED() are good. Nobody complaining that they exist. They are complaining that it breaks one of their debugging work flows, and need to disable it when they are doing so.
> > This makes me wonder - do we want to add more WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED in the > first place? :)
I would say yes.
> > Other than that, the patch looks OK to me I guess. I'm not super happy with > more printk EXPORT_SYMBOL-s, frankly speaking, I'm not entirely in love with > the "add a bool flag to suppress warn print outs which we added in the > previous patch" direction, but if you guys want/need it...
I could add a comment explaining why it exists. Something like:
/* * Set this is you need to quiet WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED() for debugging * purposes. */
> Probably I'm just dramatizing it, as usual ;) > The removal of "#if 1" is definitely nice.
Yeah, that had to go regardless.
> > Let's hear from Petr.
Sure.
-- Steve
| |