[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Event logging vs enhancing printk
> Ah.  Yes, that will definitely happen.  We only have atomicity
> at the level of a single printk call.
> It would be feasible to introduce additional locking so that
> multiple printks can be made atomic. This should be resisted
> though - printk needs to be really robust, and needs to have
> a good chance of working even when the machine is having hysterics.
> It's already rather complex.
> For the rare cases which you cite we can use a local staging
> buffer and sprintf, or just live with it, I suspect.

Right - what I'm proposing would be a generic equivalent of the
local staging buffer and sprintf - basically just a little wrapper
that does this for you, keeping a per task buffer somewhere.

The reason I want to do it like this, rather than what you suggest,
is that there are over 5000 of these "rare cases" of a printk without
a newline, according to the IBM RAS group's code search ;-) I don't
fancy changing that for 5000 instances (obviously some of those are
grouped together, but the count is definitely non-trivial). I'd
attach the report they sent me, but it's 657K long ;-)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.092 / U:1.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site