Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:51:35 +0100 | From | Jan Kara <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Avoid softlockups in console_unlock() |
| |
On Wed 06-02-13 11:26:46, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 06-02-13 09:58:48, David Rientjes wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I noticed that thread just yesterday and also though that using > > > > similar trick might be viable. I'll experiment if we could use the same > > > > method for handling lockup problems I hit. Steven seems to have already > > > > tweaked PRINTK_PENDING stuff to be usable more easily... > > > > > > > > > > Are these new build failures in linux-next coming from this patch? > > > > > > kernel/printk.c: In function 'console_unlock': > > > kernel/printk.c:2156:18: error: 'printk_work' undeclared (first use in this function) > > > kernel/printk.c:2156:18: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in > > > kernel/printk.c: At top level: > > > kernel/printk.c:2167:13: warning: 'printk_worker' defined but not used [-Wunused-function] > > Yes, I already sent a patch to fix these (attached if you need it). > > Thanks for notice. > > > > I don't see your attached > printk-Fixup-compilation-with-CONFIG_PRINTK.patch in -mm nor do I see it > on any mailing list. Regardless, Yeah, it was a private mail from kernel compilation testing guys with Andrew in CC.
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Thanks.
> for wherever Andrew has this stashed away. Thanks.
Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR
|  |