Messages in this thread | | | From | (Bernd Eckenfels) | Subject | Re: oops pauser. | Date | Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:21:32 +0100 |
| |
Josef Sipek <jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> wrote: > First of all, the above code is to just illustrate a point. And as a matter of > fact it may not even work if some other kernel thread prints something while > do_foo() is executing, the whole thing will get screwed up.
Thats another reason to not do it. And this means for me, we do not need to support or optimize for this kind of printk abuse.
> If I remember correctly, I the second line of the "sample" code, will _NOT_ > produce a timestamp. So, the output will be: > > [1234567.123456] fooo.....<7>done.
> where, the timestamp is that of the first printk.
Yes, thats the other problem, you miss the timestamp for the end of a long running operation. Thats why it is better to have that in two lines (maybe the second line with smaller severity)
Gruss Bernd - 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/
| |