lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.139 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site