[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxasUXmLwb9Mj1j8WSJbmfO1oGkcsZ2hxxbkz_p1gkUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 09:32:10 -0500
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: baijiaju1990@...il.com, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
SergeySenozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, sboyd@...nel.org,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: Can printk() sleep at runtime?
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, we need to fix or remove this format. vsprintf-like functions
> are called in any context and nobody expect that they might sleep.
Ack. I guess the argument is that "%pCr" is rare, and none of *those*
users may care, but I do think that doing things wrong as-is.
It's too subtle to have to know you're in a particular locking context
when you use a particular %p modifier.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists