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  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]
Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:33:28 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <>
To:	Jan Kara <>
Cc:	Markus Trippelsdorf <>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
	"" <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:22:50 +0200
Jan Kara <> wrote:

> > For the most part it's a blocking write. Yeah, if another CPU is
> > writing, it wont be a blocking write, but it usually is, I know I
> > depend on it (when I'm debugging, I usually don't have contention
> > between CPUs). The important part is that they are done in order. A
> > delayed print, wont be in order with other printks. That is still a
> > crucial difference.
>   printk_deffered() will be in order with other printks after your commit
> 458df9fd4815b47809875d57f42e16401674b621. Just printing to console itself
> will be delayed to the next timer interrupt. Or am I missing something?

Hehe, you're right. I blame the meds for forgetting this.

Yeah, my update will put the data in order. Thus I guess I agree with
your assessment. We probably don't need the "sched_delayed" anymore.

OK, you convinced me, but I still like to hear Peter's view on this
before we commit it.

For Markus's patch:

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <>

-- Steve
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists