Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:47:39 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: use raw spinlocks for trace_vprintk |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 14:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 21:26 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > commit 80370cb758e7ca2692cd9fb5e413d970b1f4b2b2 > > > > > Author: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com> > > > > > Date: Tue Mar 10 17:16:35 2009 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > tracing: use raw spinlocks for trace_vprintk > > > > > > > > > > Impact: prevent locking up by lockdep tracer > > > > > > > > > > The lockdep tracer uses trace_vprintk and thus trace_vprintk can not > > > > > call back into lockdep without locking up. > > > > > > > > Hmm, I did this when I posted the lockdep tracepoints, so someone then > > > > did a bad copy/paste job when renaming ftrace_printk or something? > > > > > > > > See efed792d6738964f399a508ef9e831cd60fa4657 > > > > > > What's the conclusion in this thread? I'm holding the pull > > > until there's agreement. > > > > I believe the conclusion is that Peter's changes got removed when Frederic > > removed the old printk version. But his new version did not have the > > changes. > > > > My changes are basically the same as Peter's except that I did not do > > anything with the local_irq_save, since I do not think those are needed. > > > > Peter, > > > > Are you fine with the change? I guess it's up to you now. > > Yeah, although I'd rather see the raw_local_irq_save() there too, but > the patch as it stands solves the problem.
Pulled - thanks guys!
Ingo
|  |