[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <152777998940.144038.2717154952249020053@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 08:19:49 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: Can printk() sleep at runtime?
Quoting Linus Torvalds (2018-05-31 07:32:10)
> 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.
>
Agreed. Removing the format seems to be the best approach. It looks like
only Geert has used it in the last few years and it hasn't been used
much otherwise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists