[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150602103144.GB18714@midget.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:31:44 +0200
From: Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] ntp: Use printk_deferred in leapsecond path
Hi,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 01:24:27PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Looking over the leapsecond code, I noticed the printk messages
> reporting the leapsecond insertion in the second_overflow path
> were not using the printk_deferred method. This was surprising
> since the printk_deferred method was added in part to avoid
> printk-ing while holding the timekeeping locks.
>
> See 6d9bcb621b0b (timekeeping: use printk_deferred when holding
> timekeeping seqlock) for further rational.
>
> I can only guess that this omission was a git add -p oversight.
second_overflow() is called from accumulate_nsecs_to_secs().
accumulate_nsecs_to_secs() is called from update_wall_time()
- once directly
- once via logarithmic_accumulation()
Both calls are before write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq).
So it looks safe to use printk there.
Regards,
--
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ
--
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