lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH #2] console lock grabbed too early in printk...

> > I agree completely. The point of my patch was that by adding a few (or
> > 100s, not terribly important) cycles to the printk code path we can make
> > it MUCH more likely for printk's to come out... making printk (which I see
> > as a debugging tool) robust is a very important thing to do.

> I don't think printk is as unstable as you make it out to be.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying printk is unusable or horrendously
unstable... I'm just saying that I got bit by it and I'm trying to get a
fix in so other people don't run into similar things in the future. The
patches I proposed aim to be minimal patches that impact the fewest
subsystems possible and affect performance the least amount
possible. Within this constraint, I'm trying to make printk _more_ robust
(which is good, because debugging tools get used/misused in the worst
ways) without redesigning the whole system.

> Now the console system is another story... :)

<chant>2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5...</chant>

:)

-Chris


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.106 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site