[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzC5=awDhzOy9u_2FNaQmRprUTxj_KV2xO+GnpNAFg8MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:38:01 +0900
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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 Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:50 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:
>
> It's not UART on its own that immediately calls into printk(), that would
> be trivial to fix, it's all those subsystems that serial console driver
> can call into.
We already have the whole PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK model that only
adds it to a secondary buffer if you get recursion. Why isn't that
triggering? That's the whole point of it.
I absolutely do *not* want to see any crazy changes to tty drivers. No no no.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists