Hello,

This is the second version of the patchset. It now addresses comments
from John and Petr, while also mentioning that the current work solves
one issue on handle_sysrq when the printk messages are deferred.

The original cover-letter in is the v1.

Please review!

Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Mentioned that it fixes a bug related to loglevel= dance (suggested by John)
- Changed to loud_con to FORCE_CON (John, Petr)
- Don't skip printk delay if FORCE_CON is specified (John)
- Set FORCE_CON when LOG_CONT is handled (John)
- Changed force_con from a per-CPU variable to a global variable because
  we can't disable migration on the callsites. (John, Petr)
- Used is_printk_force_console() on boot_delay_msec(), since it's used
  when the message is stored, instead of setting is as an argument.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241016-printk-loud-con-v1-0-065e4dad6632@suse.com

---
Marcos Paulo de Souza (2):
      printk: Introduce FORCE_CON flag
      tty: sysrq: Use printk_force_console context on __handle_sysrq

 drivers/tty/sysrq.c         | 18 ++++++++----------
 include/linux/printk.h      |  3 +++
 kernel/printk/internal.h    |  3 +++
 kernel/printk/printk.c      | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 kernel/printk/printk_safe.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: d9f4b813ae5c9bcdc9fcbaa1f4c9829bdc272532
change-id: 20241016-printk-loud-con-03b393d5f6fb

Best regards,
-- 
Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>

On Tue 2024-11-05 16:45:07, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This is the second version of the patchset. It now addresses comments
> from John and Petr, while also mentioning that the current work solves
> one issue on handle_sysrq when the printk messages are deferred.
> 
> The original cover-letter in is the v1.
> 
> Please review!
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Mentioned that it fixes a bug related to loglevel= dance (suggested by John)
> - Changed to loud_con to FORCE_CON (John, Petr)
> - Don't skip printk delay if FORCE_CON is specified (John)
> - Set FORCE_CON when LOG_CONT is handled (John)
> - Changed force_con from a per-CPU variable to a global variable because
>   we can't disable migration on the callsites. (John, Petr)
> - Used is_printk_force_console() on boot_delay_msec(), since it's used
>   when the message is stored, instead of setting is as an argument.
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241016-printk-loud-con-v1-0-065e4dad6632@suse.com
> ---
> Marcos Paulo de Souza (2):
>       printk: Introduce FORCE_CON flag
>       tty: sysrq: Use printk_force_console context on __handle_sysrq

The patchset looks ready for linux-next from my POV. I am going to
push it there tomorrow or on Monday unless anyone complains.

There was some bike-shedding about the code style in the reviews.
But the proposals did not look like a big win. I think that it
is not worth a respin.

Best Regards,
Petr

On Thu 2024-11-07 16:57:40, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2024-11-05 16:45:07, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This is the second version of the patchset. It now addresses comments
> > from John and Petr, while also mentioning that the current work solves
> > one issue on handle_sysrq when the printk messages are deferred.
> > 
> > The original cover-letter in is the v1.
> > 
> > Please review!
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Mentioned that it fixes a bug related to loglevel= dance (suggested by John)
> > - Changed to loud_con to FORCE_CON (John, Petr)
> > - Don't skip printk delay if FORCE_CON is specified (John)
> > - Set FORCE_CON when LOG_CONT is handled (John)
> > - Changed force_con from a per-CPU variable to a global variable because
> >   we can't disable migration on the callsites. (John, Petr)
> > - Used is_printk_force_console() on boot_delay_msec(), since it's used
> >   when the message is stored, instead of setting is as an argument.
> > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241016-printk-loud-con-v1-0-065e4dad6632@suse.com
> > ---
> > Marcos Paulo de Souza (2):
> >       printk: Introduce FORCE_CON flag
> >       tty: sysrq: Use printk_force_console context on __handle_sysrq
> 
> The patchset looks ready for linux-next from my POV. I am going to
> push it there tomorrow or on Monday unless anyone complains.
> 
> There was some bike-shedding about the code style in the reviews.
> But the proposals did not look like a big win. I think that it
> is not worth a respin.

JFYI, the patchset has been committed into printk/linux.git,
branch for-6.13-force-console.

Best Regards,
Petr

On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 04:57:36PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2024-11-05 16:45:07, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This is the second version of the patchset. It now addresses comments
> > from John and Petr, while also mentioning that the current work solves
> > one issue on handle_sysrq when the printk messages are deferred.
> > 
> > The original cover-letter in is the v1.
> > 
> > Please review!
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Mentioned that it fixes a bug related to loglevel= dance (suggested by John)
> > - Changed to loud_con to FORCE_CON (John, Petr)
> > - Don't skip printk delay if FORCE_CON is specified (John)
> > - Set FORCE_CON when LOG_CONT is handled (John)
> > - Changed force_con from a per-CPU variable to a global variable because
> >   we can't disable migration on the callsites. (John, Petr)
> > - Used is_printk_force_console() on boot_delay_msec(), since it's used
> >   when the message is stored, instead of setting is as an argument.
> > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241016-printk-loud-con-v1-0-065e4dad6632@suse.com
> > ---
> > Marcos Paulo de Souza (2):
> >       printk: Introduce FORCE_CON flag
> >       tty: sysrq: Use printk_force_console context on __handle_sysrq
> 
> The patchset looks ready for linux-next from my POV. I am going to
> push it there tomorrow or on Monday unless anyone complains.
> 
> There was some bike-shedding about the code style in the reviews.
> But the proposals did not look like a big win. I think that it
> is not worth a respin.

No objection from me!

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>