lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] printk: modify console_unlock with printk-safe macros
hi Sergey and Andy:
> On (07/15/17 18:36), Pierre Kuo wrote:
> [..]
>> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> index fc47863..21557cc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -2194,8 +2194,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
>> size_t ext_len = 0;
>> size_t len;
>>
>> - printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
>> - raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
>> + logbuf_lock_irqsave(flags);
>> if (seen_seq != log_next_seq) {
>> wake_klogd = true;
>> seen_seq = log_next_seq;
>> @@ -2267,8 +2266,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
>> */
>> raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
>> retry = console_seq != log_next_seq;
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
>> - printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
>> + logbuf_unlock_irqrestore(flags);
>>
>> if (retry && console_trylock())
>> goto again;
>
> I did it that particular way for a reason - console_unlock() does a
> bunch of tricks: unlocking logbuf in the middle of printing loop,
> breaking out of loop with local IRQs disabled, re-taking the logbuf
> after the loop still will local IRQs disabled, etc. etc. I didn't
> want to (and still don't) mix-in logbuf macros; we do things that
> macros don't cover anyway. sorry, I don't agree that the patch
> improves readability.
Got ur points and appreciate for your illustration. ^^
Thanks a lot,

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-17 13:07    [W:0.046 / U:7.536 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site