Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:14:44 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: Event logging vs enhancing printk |
| |
> Ah. Yes, that will definitely happen. We only have atomicity > at the level of a single printk call. > > It would be feasible to introduce additional locking so that > multiple printks can be made atomic. This should be resisted > though - printk needs to be really robust, and needs to have > a good chance of working even when the machine is having hysterics. > It's already rather complex. > > For the rare cases which you cite we can use a local staging > buffer and sprintf, or just live with it, I suspect.
Right - what I'm proposing would be a generic equivalent of the local staging buffer and sprintf - basically just a little wrapper that does this for you, keeping a per task buffer somewhere.
The reason I want to do it like this, rather than what you suggest, is that there are over 5000 of these "rare cases" of a printk without a newline, according to the IBM RAS group's code search ;-) I don't fancy changing that for 5000 instances (obviously some of those are grouped together, but the count is definitely non-trivial). I'd attach the report they sent me, but it's 657K long ;-)
M.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |