On (04/03/17 17:42), Petr Mladek wrote: > > +/* > > + * Init printk kthread at late_initcall stage, after core/arch/device/etc. > > + * initialization. > > + */ > > +static int __init init_printk_kthread(void) > > +{ > > + struct task_struct *thread; > > + > > + thread = kthread_run(printk_kthread_func, NULL, "printk"); > > + if (IS_ERR(thread)) { > > + pr_err("printk: unable to create printing thread\n"); > > + return PTR_ERR(thread); > > + } > > + > > + printk_kthread = thread; > > + return 0; > > +} > > +late_initcall(init_printk_kthread); > > I like the simplicity. I just wonder if people on tiny devices might > want to disable it. In each case, it does not make sense on non-SMP > machines or when people force the emergency mode all the time. > > I am not sure what is the practice here. I wonder if we should be > proactive or keep it as is and wait until anyone complains. IMHO, > it is not that big deal but...
I tend to agree that this is not a big deal, as of now. I've bigger concerns. -ss