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...

    > > 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:7.704 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site