Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 03 Jul 2000 19:43:56 -0400 | | From | Jeff Garzik <> | | Subject | Re: [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
-- 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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |