[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPXgP132AM9_3KryDc0cE+cKd-Q65wpGRkSzHaMvOGLM3AsrHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:00:38 +0200
From: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Have printk() never buffer its data
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 06:07:36PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 18:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Buffering has nice effects though:
>> > > It makes continuation lines appear as one record in the buffer, not as
>> > > n individual prints with n headers.
>> >
>> > As I already mentioned, buffering for *logging* is different from
>> > buffering for *printing*.
>> >
>> > I think it might be a great idea to buffer for logging in order to
>> > generate one individual buffer record there.
>> >
>> > But it needs to be printed as it is generated.
>>
>> That's a good idea.
>>
>> Something like this could work - only minimally tested at this moment.
>
> Hm, this doesn't boot for me, just hangs at startup :(
You have that patch against your tree? Let me try that, maybe it
conflicts with one of the patches there ...
Kay
--
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