[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181009123503.GB471@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 21:35:03 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] printk: lock/unlock console only for new logbuf
entries
On (10/09/18 10:39), Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/printk/printk.c | 10 +++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> The patch makes perfect sense. It looks a bit hacky but I can't
> think about any less hacky one.
>
> I wonder if it is worth it. But if nobody else is against it
> I am going to push it.
Well, getting to buffered printk may take some time; so I'd probably
apply it, shouldn't hurt :)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists