[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190313084028.f2m4qhxd5sjzzawr@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:40:29 +0100
From: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/25] printk: new implementation
On 2019-03-13 09:19:32 [+0100], John Ogness wrote:
> recursive situation. As you are pointing out, the notification/wake
> component of printk_safe will still be needed. I will leave that (small)
> part in printk_safe.c.
Does this mean we keep irq_work part or we bury it and solve it by other
means?
> John Ogness
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists