[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Event logging vs enhancing printk
> I'm not aware of that being the case.  The output string
> is formed into a static buffer and then copied into the
> printk ring buffer all under spinlock_irqsave(logbuf_lock).
> If there is something wrong then it would be occurring
> at the other end - where data is taken out of the ring
> and is sent to the console device(s). The locking there
> is OK, I think?

I think we're talking about slightly different things. I'd agree that
one call to printk is atomic, and won't get interspersed with other
things, but if we output a line via multiple calls to printk, then I
think we have a problem. Say CPU 0 executes this bit of code:

for (i=0; i<10; i++) { printk ("%d ", i); } printk("\n");

and CPU 1 does "printk("hello\n");" then instead of getting either

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

either of which would be fine, we may get

0 1 2 3 hello
4 5 6 7 8 9

which I don't think is fine - obviously the example is somewhat
trite, but with the real instances of things that build output for one
line through multiple calls to printk, you can get unreadable garbage,
if I read the code correctly ?


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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.141 / U:1.760 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site