Re: [PATCH] printk: Add printk_flush() to force buffered text to console

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:04:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > These printk's are useful, are used for a specific (albeit 
> > > limited) purpose and were and continue to be useful in that 
> > > role.
> > > 
> > > The changes Steve bisected to broke this use of printk().
> > 
> > And note, fixed others :)
> 
> Sorry, the "we fix some bugs and introduce others" stance is not 
> a valid response to a regression. Either fix *all* regressions 
> or revert the original change. Simple and robust policy, isn't 
> it?
> 
> > > Please apply Steve's fix, fix it yourself or revert the 
> > > changes that regressed printk().
> > 
> > I thought Steve's patch was just a RFC thing, is it really 
> > something that everyone wants to see applied?
> 
> You mean the adding of an API to flush buffered output when 
> that's the desired outcome? Why the heck should we *not* want 
> that? Either I'm the weird one or you are being difficult ;-)

The API might be better as a global flag
not a per-site flush.

Maybe printk_is_buffered(true/false)