From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Use printk_safe context for TTY and UART port locks Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:56:41 +0900 Message-ID: <20180620025641.GF650@jagdpanzerIV> References: <20180615093919.559-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20180618143818.50b2f2f9@alans-desktop> <20180619005308.GA405@jagdpanzerIV> <20180619083021.4avsgvcqjrpkat6s@pathway.suse.cz> <20180619223447.4369748b@vmware.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180619223447.4369748b@vmware.local.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Linus Torvalds , Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , One Thousand Gnomes , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Dmitry Vyukov , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-serial , SergeySenozhatsky List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On (06/19/18 22:34), Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > There is no valid reason why an UART driver should do a printk() of > > any sort inside the critical region where the console is locked. > > > > Just remove those printk's, don't add new crazy locking. > > Perhaps we should do an audit of the console drivers and remove all > printk, pr_* , WARN*, BUG* from them. I think I did a terrible job explaining my motivation. Sorry for that! What I tried to address with my patch set was not a direct uart->printk, but mostly all those uart-> tty / core kernel / who knows what else -> printk cases. When are in that special context "called from uart driver" which can backfire on us. -ss