lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH 3.18-rc3] kdb: Avoid printing KERN_ levels to consoles
On 06/11/14 17:43, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 17:22 +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 06/11/14 16:13, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 15:27 +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>>>> Currently when kdb traps printk messages then the raw log level prefix
>>>> (consisting of '\001' followed by a numeral) does not get stripped off
>>>> before the message is issued to the various I/O handlers supported by
>>>> kdb. This causes annoying visual noise as well as causing problems
>>>> grepping for ^. It is also a change of behaviour compared to normal usage
>>>> of printk() usage. For example <SysRq>-h ends up with different to that of
>>>> kdb's "sr h".
>>>>
>>>> This patch addresses the problem by stripping log levels from messages
>>>> before they are issued to the I/O handlers.
>>>
>>> Perhaps instead of stripping the logging level,
>>> maybe a KERN_SOH_ASCII 'char' sequence should be
>>> emitted as '<' 'char' '>' (see: printk:print_prefix)
>>>
>>> Maybe this should be added to stable from v3.6
>>> when KERN_SOH_ASCII was first added.
>>
>> You mean call the problem a regression and try to restore the original
>> 3.5 behaviour?
>
> Yes.
>
> I added KERN_SOH_ASCII so to me it's a regression.
>
>> However I have to confess that I don't really like the old behaviour.
>> I'd view it as contradicting the normal behaviours of consoles
>> (including the kgdbcon console). Why should printk() inside kdb show
>> different text to printk() outside kdb? For me, having <5> and <c>
>> scribbled all over the output of an "sr" command (which I think is
>> probably the heaviest user of printk() inside kdb) never struck me as
>> adding much value.
>>
>> Is the above paragraph convincing?
>
> I don't use it so I have a useful opinion.
>
> I don't recall that anyone has reported it in the
> 2+ years since so it doesn't seem widely used.

Does that arguing against Cc:ing stable@ or you think I should just put
that on anyway and leave it for the stable committee?


> But then again, this is a resend and I don't recall
> seeing it the first time either.
>
>> On the other hand if you really mean "perhaps and maybe" then I'd prefer
>> to leave it as it it.
>
> Your choice.
>
> btw: in the patch I suggest using printk_skip_level
> instead of the direct test here:
>
> + cp = kdb_buffer;
> + if (cp[0] == KERN_SOH_ASCII && cp[1] != '\0')
> + cp += 2;
>
> so this could be
>
> cp = printk_skip_level(kdb_buffer);

Excellent. I'll do that.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-07 11:41    [W:0.086 / U:1.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site