[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1206368515.10894.246.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:21:55 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] time: xtime lock vs printk
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 13:24 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> - printk(KERN_INFO "Time: %s clocksource has been installed.\n",
> + /*
> + * We're holding xtime lock and waking up klogd would deadlock
> + * us on enqueue. Print without waking.
> + */
> + printk_nowakeup(KERN_INFO "Time: %s clocksource has been
> installed.\n",
> clock->name);
It doesn't seem like there is a lot of potential for more xtime write
lock holders to do printk's .. We could just remove this line, or move
this printk into an __init ..
Daniel
--
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