[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161019011434.GB513@swordfish>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:14:34 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 0/6] printk: use printk_safe to handle printk()
recursive calls
On (10/18/16 09:45), Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-10-19 at 00:40 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > This patch set extends a lock-less NMI per-cpu buffers idea to
> > handle recursive printk() calls.
>
> trivia:
>
> recursive or reentrant?
a recursive one.
printk -> {foo} -> printk
reentrant printk() case was addressed by Petr Mladek's nmi patchset:
printk()
foo
-------> NMI
printk()
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists