[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141114115749.1514ec0a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:57:49 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Cc: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] printk: Use ACCESS_ONCE() instead of a volatile
type
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:39:34 -0600
Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org> wrote:
> There is only one read of logbuf_cpu:
> if (unlikely(logbuf_cpu == this_cpu)) {
> This is called only while local interrupts are disabled, so
> if this condition holds it cannot be due to an interrupt--it
Unless an NMI called printk.
> must be due to simple recursion into printk() while inside
> the spinlock-protected critical section.
> QED. (Well, please correct me where I'm wrong...)
>
Except for the NMI case, I believe you are correct with the rest of
your analysis.
-- Steve
--
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