Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 May 2014 11:30:02 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Convert timekeeping core to use printk_deferred (v2) |
| |
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than > "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))), > not (((printk(once(deferred))).
Or printk_once_removed()? Or does that only deal with cousins?
-- Steve
| |