* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the scariest bit is the adding of cpu_clock() to kernel/printk.c so
> > late in the game, and the anti-recursion code i did there. Maybe
> > because this only affects CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME we could try it even
> > for v2.6.24.
>
> Printk recursion I guess shouldn't happen, but if there is a bug
> somewhere in eg. the scheduler locking, then it may trigger, right?
or we just crash somewhere. It's all about risk management - printk is
crutial, and with more complex codepaths being touched in printk it
might make sense to just add built-in recursion protection into printk
via my patch.
> Probably pretty rare case, however it would be nice to be able to find
> out where the recursion comes from? Can you put an instruction pointer
> in the recursion message perhaps?
yeah, as i mentioned if this would be occuring in practice we can always
save the stacktrace of the incident and output that. I opted for the
simplest approach first. Thanks for your Reviewed-by, i've queued it up
for 2.6.25.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
