On 2024/03/27 20:05, John Ogness wrote: > The printk rework (which is not yet fully mainline) will correctly > handle this context. > > As to the patch [0] you suggested, it would be more appropriate to > perform deferred_enter/_exit *within* the locked critical section. But > we really only want these whack-a-mole workarounds for cases that can > occur in a non-bug situation. IMHO this is not such a case and falls > into the category of "known problem, the rework will handle it". > > John Ogness > > [0] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=Patch&x=121c92fe180000 > Since the cause of current flood of lockdep reports is already explained in https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c4f4d25859c2e5859988 , we don't need [0] for now. But it is unfortunate that the message which explains what went wrong cannot be reported due to reporting console_lock dependency. Therefore, I intend [0] as a workaround for a bug situation. We can revert [0] after the printk rework completed.
