[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111214065910.GA25775@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:59:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: printk() vs tty_io
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Hi tty folks,
>
> I've been poking at reducing the constraints on printk(), like make it
> work under rq->lock etc..
>
> Aside from a fwd port of the patch that abuses the
> console_sem.lock: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/9/298 and a few
> other not so very pretty patches, I ran into the following
> lockdep splat (using a not so very pretty lockdep
> early_printk() patch):
btw., would be nice to also somehow realeasify those debug hacks
to preserve them for eternity - doing all lockdep output as
earlyprintk while keeping printks working is a great way to
debug printk() itself.
Those printk lockups also took a *lot* of time for me to bisect.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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