Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:00:42 -0700 (PDT) | From | Chris Lattner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH #2] console lock grabbed too early in printk... |
| |
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> Only when things are bad. Im not arguing about that point just your cycle > counts. The other concern is that its better for printk to get a message > out than hang in a lock
I agree completely. The point of my patch was that by adding a few (or 100s, not terribly important) cycles to the printk code path we can make it MUCH more likely for printk's to come out... making printk (which I see as a debugging tool) robust is a very important thing to do.
Does this make sense, or am I off picking daisies and talking to myself? :)
-Chris
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |