Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:33:18 -0500 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:19:19 -0800 > > Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm thinking this is a won't fix - wait for the printk rework to land and > > > > > > assume this will be resolved as well? > > > > > > > > > > That pretty much sums up what I was about to say ;-) > > > > > > > > > > tp_printk is more of a hack and not to be used sparingly. With the right > > > > > trace events it can hang the machine. > > > > > > > > > > So, you can use your internal patch locally, but I would recommend waiting > > > > > for the new printk changes to land. > > > > > > Steven, Do you think that will land in 6.9? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really hoping that will be soon! > > > > > > > > > I may be like Jon Corbet predicting RT will land in mainline if I do. > > > > -- Steve > > > > > Agreed. Don't wait on printk fixes landing. (Well unless you are sure > it's the year of the Linux desktop.) Reverting is fine for 6.8 > if you and Dan feel it's unwise to take this forwards (all the distros > will backport it anyway and 6.8 isn't an LTS so no great rush) > so fine to just queue it up again for 6.9 with this fix. > > As Steve said, tp_printk is a hack (a very useful one) and > hopefully no one runs it in production. OMG... I did not realize what tp_printk() was exactly. I should have looked closer. Do we have evidence of its use in production? I would love to not have to revert/respin, Ira
