linux-kernel - Re: printk() vs tty

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1323946517.18942.29.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:55:17 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: printk() vs tty_io

On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 10:32 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:

> For lockdep spews do they need to be spewed synchronously - clearly it's
> good if they can be but its possible that they could be buffered ?

This wasn't about lockdep per-se, it all started with me trying to
cleanup printk()'s abuse of lockdep_off()/lockdep_on. Which then grew
into something a little bigger.

I'm fine with dropping the larger goal of making printk() work in all
but NMI context and focus on the initial cleanup.


--
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/