From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F8A91DCB09; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725461744; cv=none; b=MeBEysVoWPdCN6eMA0FYegua56AlVf05Shks2FINOxrPQfcelfSjklK7MbcYZ4mLapZIAaXYqyVTnp9yXJcq/gRIVrVRkKqceWiLflIgq4Hm0VNiAzNUUsotGhGq9VTDPhjGYRP+cybxYPQBLdfvZfylaouCJVdtNpqzxFSk268= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725461744; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/ct6R4FKRl9rp8LyD80S78FZeFGhueZNb1pn0YRorzA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WUiASvyEuNwuTBefrH1r9VRVqD7llNXjYhfKDAKeFGk85VPalm+yGRJMYxbxXQlFcLahpVy0AXJsML7rvTtj7cO0F7xkamsNvnCdcpgYcFfXHVEu+gX24LfDZj0Apnhw+rNW/RbPLDwvwwnGrAf3KHX0KCxWG72d/TtaEq3Lf1M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=1bcVT+4H; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=TB1lxhaE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="1bcVT+4H"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="TB1lxhaE" From: John Ogness DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1725461740; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/ct6R4FKRl9rp8LyD80S78FZeFGhueZNb1pn0YRorzA=; b=1bcVT+4HJL63HsuPKH/FmarU/HWxYtMlZZQgUUiMbq6yYAgFHw1CkdSnsa1WfshxsHtZXq rxQfgtbUhr9itRC1EHl02rqAoNT0TggbNzoL+x17Qv8tdfUiAivOkIYS9bzkrehq88h4Rm E4uLHluWplCoKjt1X0MZCTjEcy5Fa8JjPMZRE2Ay1hr84AFTk6RhgzRKnY55A2VJQXvVFH t30z3z1q3ka3lQ5/DyiCnsNLLwrKOGe5adUvfloe3/Qx34fQEtlFX9sXkHMThhHcfeD62X YcQPiREi6QMVvTQDVibf75yrAU3ks2mSwVTCauIDdwNUNCg5sm6FMfRkhrjh3w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1725461740; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/ct6R4FKRl9rp8LyD80S78FZeFGhueZNb1pn0YRorzA=; b=TB1lxhaEhLcvQtbabjrZHMscg9WqcA14Nmzf0iixbYBZVkthPUPzdsocQbOjKHAkgAjdVo Iiwb9JzXTzRQLODA== To: Petr Mladek Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v6 00/17] add threaded printing + the rest In-Reply-To: References: <20240904120536.115780-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 17:01:40 +0206 Message-ID: <87ed5za2oj.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On 2024-09-04, Petr Mladek wrote: > JFYI, the patchset has been committed into printk/linux.git, > branch rework/threaded-printk. Thanks! > I am not completely sure if we add this early enough for 6.12. > On one hand, the patchset should not change the handling of legacy > consoles and it does not add any nbcon console. But it touches > many code paths where we decide how to flush the consoles > and could imagine doing "ugly" mistakes there. > > OK, let's see how it works in linux-next in the following days. > There is still time to catch problems and make the decision. I just don't think there are many real users of linux-next. The code leading to the 5.19 revert sat in linux-next for a long time and no one noticed anything. It wasn't until the 5.19-rc's started coming out that real testing (and bug reporting) occurred. I think linux-next is great for the kernel robots to work their magic, but I don't know if having something in linux-next for 6 weeks is any better than only 2 weeks. John