On 2020-07-18, Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It seems this causes a regression observed at least with newline-only
> printks.
> [...]
> ------ >8 ------
>
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -1039,6 +1039,10 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init start_kernel(void)
> sfi_init_late();
> kcsan_init();
>
> + pr_info("EXPECT BLANK LINE --vv\n");
> + pr_info("\n");
> + pr_info("EXPECT BLANK LINE --^^\n");
> +
> /* Do the rest non-__init'ed, we're now alive */
> arch_call_rest_init();
Thanks for the example. This is an unintentional regression in the
series. I will submit a patch to fix this.
Note that this regression does not exist when the followup series [0]
(reimplementing LOG_CONT) is applied. All the more reason that the 1st
series should be fixed before pushing the 2nd series to linux-next.
John Ogness
[0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200717234818.8622-1-john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
