[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180305221644.6946fa99@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:16:44 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: "Qixuan.Wu" <qixuan.wu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel-owner <linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"chenggang.qin" <chenggang.qin@...ux.alibaba.com>,
caijingxian <caijingxian@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"yuanliang.wyl" <yuanliang.wyl@...baba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: Would you help to tell why async printk solution was not taken
to upstream kernel ?
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:53:50 +0900
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:
> Yes. My point was that "CPU can print one full buffer max" is not
> guaranteed and not exactly true. There are ways for CPUs to break
> that O(logbuf) boundary.
Yes, when printk or the consoles have a bug, it can be greater than
O(logbuf).
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists