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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 05:51:27AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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)

Hm, that sounds a bit better, and I thin it would solve the timestamp
problem that the proposed patch has, right?  We would then just
timestamp on a new line, as we should "know" when that happens?

Steven, do you like this idea better?

thanks,

greg k-h