Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:02:12 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] printk: Poke printk extra hard |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK_DEBUG > > +void printk_init(void) > > +{ > > + struct rq *rq; > > + unsigned long flags; > > + > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > + rq = this_rq(); > > + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock); > > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "printk: echo echo echo..\n"); > > + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock); > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > Ok, I can't really say that I think this is worth a config option like this. > > Maybe an example module or something? > > And I don't know *why*, but my immediate reaction to the > message was that it either should be serious and say what it > tested ("printk() works under rq lock"), or it should say > "Bork bork bork". "echo echo echo" sounds just stupid.
We could perhaps use the standard mike test message:
printk: Tap, tap, is this thing on?
Thanks,
Ingo -- 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/
| |