On (20/07/20 11:30), Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Do I get it right, what you are saying is - when we process a PR_CONT > > message the cont buffer should already contain previous non-LOG_NEWLINE > > and non-PR_CONT message, otherwise it's a bug? > > No. > > I'm saying that the code that does PR_CONT should have done *some* > printing before, otherwise it's at the very least questionable. > > IOW, you can't just randomly start printing with PR_CONT, without > having established _some_ context for it. OK, I see. I sort of suspect that we may actually have code that does just pr_cont() (e.g. what Joe pointed out). It doesn't seem like that "establish a context" was ever enforced, doing a bunch of pr_cont() simply works. [..] > That said, we have traditionally used not just "current process", but > also "last irq-level" as the context information, so I do think it > would be good to continue to do that. OK, so basically, extending printk_caller_id() so that for IRQ/NMI we will have more info than just "0x80000000 + raw_smp_processor_id()". -ss _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
