[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140917141816.GO2840@worktop.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:18:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for
printk_deferred
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:33:28PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 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.
By not calling console_unlock() the messages will be 'delayed', as in,
we'll not call console->write() and we'll not see them, etc..
So some form of [delayed] or whatnot seems to remain appropriate.
I agree that the 'sched_' part has lived far beyond its relevance.
--
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