Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:03:52 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] printk: Poke printk extra hard |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 08:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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? > > I really really really don't want to expose struct rq to > modules, that's just asking for trouble. But yeah, I know what > you mean with not being worth the config option, but then, I > thought I might as well post it, it can't be more horrible > than the sem patch, can it ;-)
Could be made part of the locking self-tests - that way it does not add an extra config option! ;-)
Thanks,
Ingo
| |