lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [1/2] kernel error reporting (revised)
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jim Keniston wrote:

> > Yes, this makes sense. At the kerror.c level, just return -EDEADLK if in_irq().
> > Delay packet delivery (via a tasklet, as before) at the evlog.c level instead.
> > That way, we know at the evlog.c level (in the tasklet) whether the event packet
> > was delivered to anybody, and can paraphrase it to printk if it wasn't.
> >
> > Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

Not exactly -- I don't think the logging framework should do any irq
detection. The caller should either know if its in an interrupt, or do
the detection itself.


- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@intercode.com.au>


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.057 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site