[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181106090544.GA516@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 18:05:44 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Use line-buffered printk() for lockdep
messages.
On (11/06/18 09:38), Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> If you would want to avoid buffering, you could set the number
> of buffers to zero. Then it would always fallback to
> the direct printk().
This printk-fallback makes me wonder if 'cont' really can ever go away.
We would totally break cont printk-s that trapped into printk-fallback;
as opposed to current sometimes-cont-works-just-fine.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists