Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:21:40 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts |
| |
On Čt 01-06-06 17:48:57, Jon Smirl wrote: > 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?
Not if foreground code is already printing something. Fortunately we do not spend most of time printing text; that's why printk from interrupt usually works.
Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/
| |