Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation

Petr Mladek
2019-09-06T09:40:01Z

On Thu 2019-09-05 12:11:01, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> [ Added Ted and Linux Plumbers ]
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:38:21 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > The alternative lockless approach is still more complicated than
> > > > the serialized one. But I think that it is manageable thanks to
> > > > the simplified state tracking. And I might safe use some pain
> > > > in the long term.
> > >
> > > I've not looked at it yet, sorry. But per the above argument of needing
> > > the CPU serialization _anyway_, I don't see a compelling reason not to
> > > use it.
> > >
> > > It is simple, it works. Let's use it.
> > >
> > > If you really fancy a multi-writer buffer, you can always switch to one
> > > later, if you can convince someone it actually brings benefits and not
> > > just head-aches.
> >
> > Can we please grab one of the TBD slots at kernel summit next week, sit
> > down in a room and hash that out?
> >
>
> We should definitely be able to find a room that will be available next
> week.

Sounds great. I am blocked only during Livepatching miniconference
that is scheduled on Wednesday, Sep 11 at 15:00
(basically the very last slot).

Best Regards,
Petr