[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111222070212.GA9593@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:02:12 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] printk: Poke printk extra hard
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK_DEBUG
> > +void printk_init(void)
> > +{
> > + struct rq *rq;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > + rq = this_rq();
> > + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "printk: echo echo echo..\n");
> > + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> Ok, I can't really say that I think this is worth a config option like this.
>
> Maybe an example module or something?
>
> And I don't know *why*, but my immediate reaction to the
> message was that it either should be serious and say what it
> tested ("printk() works under rq lock"), or it should say
> "Bork bork bork". "echo echo echo" sounds just stupid.
We could perhaps use the standard mike test message:
printk: Tap, tap, is this thing on?
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