[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:0.074 / U:5.700 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site