Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 03 Jul 2000 19:05:32 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH #2] console lock grabbed too early in printk... |
| |
Chris Lattner wrote: > > 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.
I don't think printk is as unstable as you make it out to be.
Now the console system is another story... :)
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | Building 1024 | Make my funk the p-funk. MandrakeSoft, Inc. |
- 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/
| |