Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:48:57 -0400 | From | "Jon Smirl" <> | Subject | Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts |
| |
On 6/1/06, Antonino A. Daplas <adaplas@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: > > On 6/1/06, Antonino A. Daplas <adaplas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jon Smirl wrote: > >> > On 6/1/06, D. Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> Console writes are done with the console semaphore held. printk will also > >> just write to the log buffer and defer the actual console printing > >> for later, by the next or current process that will grab the semaphore. > > > > That was my original position too. But Alan Cox has drilled it into me > > that this is not acceptable for printks in interrupt context, they > > need to print there and not be deferred. > > > > Just to clarify, it's not my position, that's how the current printk code > works.
I haven't looked at the code, but if there is just normal console running and nothing like X is around, doesn't the console system always have the semaphore? If it always has the semaphore then interupt context printk's aren't blocked.
I think that interrupt context printk's work today, I have definitely seen one printk get inserted into the middle of another on my console. How else could you achieve that?
-- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com - 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/
| |