[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161020131813.GB473@swordfish>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:18:13 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.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>, 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 (10/19/16 15:34), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 03:18:36PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2016-10-18 19:07:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[..]
> It might make sense to go there, but allow early_console to print on the
> go, keeping synchronous output available. We would still need the logbuf
> to become NMI safe wrt adding entries though.
>
as a side (spam) note,
I sent a [TECH TOPIC] suggestion to ksummit-discuss a while ago
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-July/002740.html
and a later update
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-September/004006.html
which covers some of the printk problems. so I'm sure I can tell whether
the suggestion has been approved or rejected, but hopefully we can find
some time to sit down and talk about the issues.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists