On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 12:20, John Ogness <john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Great, thank you for clarifying! :-)
-- Marco
> 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
