[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160930020045.GD547@swordfish>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:00:45 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] printk: new printk() recursion detection
On (09/29/16 15:19), Petr Mladek wrote:
> I am sorry but I do not understand this much. printk() should set the
> alternative implementation in the critical section by default.
> Why do we need to handle this so specially?
>
> Is it because of flushing in NMI context when panicing? I would call
> vprintk_emit() directly from the flush_line() function in this case.
> Then all other possible error printk's will get redirected to the
> NMI buffer which is good enouh.
I'm going to re-do the entire thing. I had some cases in mind, like
WARN from vsnprintf from printk from alt_printk_flushing from panic.
or something like this. perhaps too complicated, will re-think it.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists