[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0801172045310.1073@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:52:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...nvz.org>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk deadlocks if called with runqueue lock held
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> IOW, I think this should be
>
> if (raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags) && wake_klogd)
> wake_up_klogd();
>
> Of course, not all architectures seem to suport that thing (it's currently
> only used by the CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS config option).
>
> Damn. So close, yet so far away.
Perhaps we can define something like:
#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_RAW_IRQS_DISABLED_FLAGS
# define test_irqs_disabled_flags(flags) raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)
#else
# define test_irqs_disabled_flags(flags) \
({ (void)flags; irqs_disabled();})
#endif
then we could do
if (test_irqs_disabled_flags(flags) && wake_klogd)
wake_up_klogd();
Or is this asking too much ;-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists