lists.openwall.net | 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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:36:33 +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 Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:22:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:18:16 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > 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. > > But then we should add '[delayed]' if a CPU calls printk() while > another CPU is printing, as printk() wont block in that case either, > and the output will happen some later time. You're over thinking this. You cannot (and we don't want to) know if it indeed got delayed, therefore it got delayed. -- 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