[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180928090204.GD1160@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 18:02:04 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: inject caller information into the body of
message
On (09/28/18 01:10), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> Therefore, I think that "Either we need to require synchronization - umm... and
> document it - or to provide some means of synchronization in pr_line()." is a
> pointless worry. It is only existing printk() API which needs synchronization. I
> think that line buffered printk() API does not need to talk about synchronization.
> Just saying "don't share DEFINE_PR_LINE()/DEFINE_PR_LINE_BUF() variables" will be
> sufficient.
Agreed. My conclusion at the end was that - "pr_line is going to do as much
as seq_buf does". So pr_line won't provide any additional synchronization
mechanisms.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists