On 21/02/2022 22:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > [...] > Yeah, if Petr is fine with that then I'm OK. But at the same time, > we have `panic_print' which is a bit mask of what panic_print_sys_info() > should do. And now we also have a boolean `console_flush` flag that tells > panic_print_sys_info() to ignore some (one as of now) bits of `panic_print'. > > So _maybe_ panic_print_sys_info() can just accept panic_print as > its parameter and then we can do something like this (as an example) > > panic_print_sys_info(panic_print & ~PANIC_PRINT_ALL_PRINTK_MSG); > > >> if (panic_print & PANIC_PRINT_ALL_CPU_BT) >> trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(); >> @@ -286,6 +289,8 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...) >> */ >> atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_notifier_list, 0, buf); > > [..] > >> + panic_print_sys_info(false); > > Merely because `panic_print_sys_info(false);` doesn't tell much to a reader. > Like what is print sys info false? > > Or did you already discuss this? Hi Sergey, thanks for your feedback. So, personally I prefer having the flag - for me it's clear, it's just a matter of reading the prototype - either we print the info _or_ we console_flush. But let's see if others have a preference - if the preference is to use the bitmask as you suggest, we can do it in a next version. Cheers, Guilherme _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
