![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > Actually it already does, to cover the case where an interrupt handler calls > > printk while process-context code is performing a printk. > > I don't think it'll work. Both printk and release_console_sem take the logbuf_lock, > which will deadlock if the same CPU already holds it. Look more closely. logbuf_lock is only held to protect the logbuf contents and its indices. And to pin down the current console_sem holder to reliably ensure that he'll print the text which the nested printer just placed in the buffer. We do not call the console drivers while holding logbuf_lock. console_sem is held across the console driver call. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:36 [W:0.160 / U:0.080 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||