[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180629015211.GB614@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:52:11 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] printk: Deadlock in NMI regression
On (06/28/18 12:54), Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> On Thu 2018-06-28 11:39:02, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (06/27/18 16:08), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > >
> > > kernel/printk/printk.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > > kernel/printk/printk_safe.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >
> > Shall we just merge these two?
>
> Do you mean to merge files or the patches, please?
Yeah... dunno. We now lock logbuf spinlock outside of printk.c, and
we now have printk.c functions that have that "printk guts, must be
called under logbuf lock" requirement and so on. I like when static
things are static :)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists