Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:55:06 +0200 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCHv2 0/7] printk: use alt_printk to handle printk() recursive calls |
| |
On Sat 2016-10-01 00:17:51, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hello, > > RFC > > This patch set extends a lock-less NMI per-cpu buffers idea to > handle recursive printk() calls. The basic mechanism is pretty much the > same -- at the beginning of a deadlock-prone section we switch to lock-less > printk callback, and return back to a default printk implementation at the > end; the messages are getting flushed to a logbuf buffer from a safer > context.
OK, I think again that this patch set makes sense. It looks good after all my doubts ;-)
Just I would like you to consider using some more meaningful name instead of the "alt" prefix. I wonder how the following prefix would look like:
printk_safe* printk_safe_nmi*
I am not sure. It is possible that I am also confused that you used prefix rather than a suffix. I was actually forced to rename many new functions in the kthread worker API (my other pet project) to start with the name of the subsystem (kthread in this case).
Also "alt_printk_ctx" per-CPU variable describes a global printk state. I think that the alt_ prefix is not needed and "printk_context" would be better readable.
Thanks for patience with me.
Best Regards, Petr
| |