Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:38:21 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation |
| |
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > The alternative lockless approach is still more complicated than > > the serialized one. But I think that it is manageable thanks to > > the simplified state tracking. And I might safe use some pain > > in the long term. > > I've not looked at it yet, sorry. But per the above argument of needing > the CPU serialization _anyway_, I don't see a compelling reason not to > use it. > > It is simple, it works. Let's use it. > > If you really fancy a multi-writer buffer, you can always switch to one > later, if you can convince someone it actually brings benefits and not > just head-aches.
Can we please grab one of the TBD slots at kernel summit next week, sit down in a room and hash that out?
Thanks,
tglx
| |