[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190304110703.GA960@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 20:07:03 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Wang <wonderfly@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 08/25] printk: add ring buffer and kthread
On (03/04/19 19:00), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>
> But in general, channels which depend on preemptible printk will become
> totally useless in some cases.
>
Which brings me to a question - what are those messages/channels?
Not important enough to be printed on consoles immediately, yet important
enough to pass the suppress_message_printing() check. We may wave those
semi-important messages good bye, I'm afraid, preemptible printk will
take care of it.
So... do we have a case here? Do we really need printk-kthread?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists