lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]
Hi,

On (08/24/17 12:39), Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > > > buffer immediately.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several
> > > usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\n") in kernel.
> > >
> > > Did a bit research myself, and I now think the inappropriate use is to
> > > use a KERN_CONT printk *after* another printk ending with a "\n".
> >
> > ah... I didn't check __print_lock_name(): it leaves unflushed cont buffer
> > upon the return. sorry, your code is correct.
> >
>
> So means printk(KERN_CON "..."); + printk(KERN_CONT "...\n") is a
> correct usage, right?

well, yes. with one precondition - there should be no printk-s from other
CPUs/tasks in between

printk(KERN_CON "..."); + printk(KERN_CONT "...\n")
^^^^^
here we can have a preliminary flush and broken
cont line. but it's been this way forever.

-ss

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-24 06:51    [W:0.073 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site