linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for printk

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/