[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140917223633.GE2848@worktop.localdomain>
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