[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190313100653.GA23478@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:06:53 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
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 (03/13/19 18:27), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Does this mean we keep irq_work part or we bury it and solve it by other
> > means?
>
> That's a very good question. Because if we add console_trylock()
> to printk(), then we can't invoke ->atomic() consoles when console_sem
> is already locked, because one of the registered drivers is currently
> being modified by a 3rd party and printk(), thus, must stay away.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
one of the drivers or the list itself.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists