Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:43:20 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [printk] fbc14616f4: BUG:kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage |
| |
On Wed 2017-04-12 01:19:53, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (04/11/17 10:46), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (04/10/17 20:48), Pavel Machek wrote: > > [..] > > > > but, once again, I see your point. > > > > > > Good. Does that mean that the next version of patches will work ok in > > > that case? > > > > yes. > > ok... so I'm looking at something like below right now. > not really tested yet. > > I put some comments into the code. > > it does offloading after X printed lines by the same process. > if we reschedule, then the counter resets. which is probably OK, > we don't really want any process, except for printk_kthread, to > stay in console_unlock() forever. "number of lines printed" is > probably easier to understand (easily converted to the number of > pageup/pagedown you need to press, terminal buffer history size, > etc.) than seconds we spent on printing (which doesn't even > correspond to messages' timestamps in general case).
Design looks good to me... certainly better than previous version :-).
> when the limit of "number of lines printed" is 0, then no > offloading takes place.
And with "number of lines printed" set to 999999, it will get us previous behaviour, right?
Thanks, Pavel
-- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |