Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:17:37 -0700 (PDT) | From | Chris Lattner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH #2] console lock grabbed too early in printk... |
| |
> > 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.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying printk is unusable or horrendously unstable... I'm just saying that I got bit by it and I'm trying to get a fix in so other people don't run into similar things in the future. The patches I proposed aim to be minimal patches that impact the fewest subsystems possible and affect performance the least amount possible. Within this constraint, I'm trying to make printk _more_ robust (which is good, because debugging tools get used/misused in the worst ways) without redesigning the whole system.
> Now the console system is another story... :)
<chant>2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5...</chant>
:)
-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/
| |