[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH #2] console lock grabbed too early in printk...
    Chris Lattner wrote:
    > Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying printk is unusable or horrendously
    > unstable... I'm just saying that I got bit by it and I'm trying to get a
    > fix in so other people don't run into similar things in the future. The
    > patches I proposed aim to be minimal patches that impact the fewest
    > subsystems possible and affect performance the least amount
    > possible. Within this constraint, I'm trying to make printk _more_ robust
    > (which is good, because debugging tools get used/misused in the worst
    > ways) without redesigning the whole system.

    I'm trying to whittle "make more robust" into something more concrete.
    Currently there is a namespace collision with 'buf' in printk.c (your
    patch #4), but I just don't see anything more than that. Since 'buf' is
    protected by console_lock currently, things seem to be otherwise ok.
    Recursive printk? Lost messages? Your patch #4 seems like just a bunch
    of extra code for rare if not impossible cases.

    Please do correct me if I'm wrong!


    Jeff Garzik |
    Building 1024 | Make my funk the p-funk.
    MandrakeSoft, Inc. |

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.030 / U:1.516 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site