Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:52:33 +1000 (EST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [1/2] kernel error reporting (revised) |
| |
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jim Keniston wrote:
> > Yes, this makes sense. At the kerror.c level, just return -EDEADLK if in_irq(). > > Delay packet delivery (via a tasklet, as before) at the evlog.c level instead. > > That way, we know at the evlog.c level (in the tasklet) whether the event packet > > was delivered to anybody, and can paraphrase it to printk if it wasn't. > > > > Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
Not exactly -- I don't think the logging framework should do any irq detection. The caller should either know if its in an interrupt, or do the detection itself.
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |