[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130206185205.GA11254@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 19:52:05 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jslaby@...e.cz,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Avoid softlockups in console_unlock()
On Wed 06-02-13 09:58:48, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > Yes, I noticed that thread just yesterday and also though that using
> > similar trick might be viable. I'll experiment if we could use the same
> > method for handling lockup problems I hit. Steven seems to have already
> > tweaked PRINTK_PENDING stuff to be usable more easily...
> >
>
> Are these new build failures in linux-next coming from this patch?
>
> kernel/printk.c: In function 'console_unlock':
> kernel/printk.c:2156:18: error: 'printk_work' undeclared (first use in this function)
> kernel/printk.c:2156:18: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> kernel/printk.c: At top level:
> kernel/printk.c:2167:13: warning: 'printk_worker' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
Yes, I already sent a patch to fix these (attached if you need it).
Thanks for notice.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
View attachment "0001-printk-Fixup-compilation-with-CONFIG_PRINTK.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1113 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists