[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1403200905070.4107@nuc>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:06:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-next][regression] [PATCH] percpu: add preemption checks
to __this_cpu ops
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > snprintf can cause hangs.
>
> This is weird. How the heck can snprintf() fail if called too early?
> All it does is shuffle chars around in memory. The only external
> dependency I'm seeing is a WARN_ON() which presumably didn't trigger
> anyway.
>
> I'm suspecting a misdiagnosis here. Otherwise, we seriously need to
> fix snprintf(), not work around it!
>
> Also, what does "before checking error conditions" refer to? Does this
> mean you know why snprintf() failed??
No I dont. I only know that this fixes Grygorii's issues. There could be
numerous arch specific per cpu setup issues going on that may impact on
snprintf.
If I move it behind the checks then I can avoid using snprintf.
--
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