From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752504AbeAXCym (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:54:42 -0500
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58292 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752221AbeAXCyl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:54:41 -0500
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2679A204EE
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, 23 Jan 2018 21:54:38 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@fb.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Avoid triggering hardlockup from
 debug_show_all_locks()
Message-ID: <20180123215438.0257fa3e@vmware.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20180124024955.GB651@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20180122220055.GB1771050@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
        <1516734237.31954.17.camel@fb.com>
        <20180123205706.GH1771050@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
        <20180123160054.325ff326@gandalf.local.home>
        <20180123211154.GI1771050@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
        <20180124024955.GB651@jagdpanzerIV>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1 (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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:49:55 +0900
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another problem, and I mentioned it somewhere in another email, is that
> upstream printk people don't receive enough [if any at all] feedback from
> guys who face printk issues. That's why every time printk_kthread re-surfaces
> the reaction is "this is not a real problem, no one is seeing printk issues
> like these, you idiot!". It'd be great to have more "we need ABC, because of
> XYZ, but printk crashes the system. Here is the backtrace, fix it" reports.
> As of now, those things mostly are not reported, that's why people are not
> convinced. Just my 5 cents.

If you are seeing these issues, have whoever is reporting them to Cc
LKML, and those of us that would care to listen.

-- Steve