[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180620025641.GF650@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:56:41 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
SergeySenozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Use printk_safe context for TTY and UART port
locks
On (06/19/18 22:34), Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > There is no valid reason why an UART driver should do a printk() of
> > any sort inside the critical region where the console is locked.
> >
> > Just remove those printk's, don't add new crazy locking.
>
> Perhaps we should do an audit of the console drivers and remove all
> printk, pr_* , WARN*, BUG* from them.
I think I did a terrible job explaining my motivation.
Sorry for that!
What I tried to address with my patch set was not a direct uart->printk,
but mostly all those
uart-> tty / core kernel / who knows what else -> printk
cases. When are in that special context "called from uart driver" which
can backfire on us.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists