[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190918081012.GB37041@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:10:12 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: printk meeting at LPC
On (09/18/19 09:42), John Ogness wrote:
> > It's going to be a bit harder when we have per-console kthread.
>
> Each console has its own iterator. This iterators will need to advance,
> regardless if the message was printed via write() or write_atomic().
Great.
->atomic_write() path will make sure that kthread is parked or will
those compete for uart port?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists