On (21/02/09 09:39), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > So then this never re-inits the safe_read_lock? > > Yes, but it will also not cause the deadlock.
Right.
> I prefer this approach. It is straightforward because it handles
> read_lock the same way as logbuf_lock.
I'm fine with that approach, but this needs to be in the commit message.
Something like "lose printk_safe message when we think we will deadlock
on printk_safe flush".
-ss
