[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D530191E8BCF1@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:00:47 -0800
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: RE: [PATCH -v2 2/3] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI generic error status print
support
> + for (i = 0; i < strs_size; i++) {
> + if (!(bits & (1U << i)))
> + continue;
> + str = strs[i];
> + if (len && len + strlen(str) + 2 > 80) {
> + printk("\n");
> + len = 0;
> + }
> + if (!len)
> + len = pr_pfx(pfx, "%s", str);
> + else
> + len += printk(", %s", str);
> + }
> + if (len)
> + printk("\n");
Does printk() offer any guarantees about getting all the characters
from a single printk() call out to the console without interleaving
with messages from printk() calls on other cpus? If it does, then
it would be a good idea to sprintf() the parts of this message to
a buffer and then use one printk() call. I think I read that netconsole
ends up with one packet on the wire for each call to printk().
Trying to parse output jumbled together from multiple cpus
doesn't sound like fun.
-Tony
--
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