Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > queued_writes=1;
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, that means that if machine crashes in interrupt, it may
> > > "loose" printk message. That is considered bad (tm).
> >
> > The alternative is that the machine clock slides continually and the machine
> > is unusable. This is considered even worse by most people
>
> Neither. I was going to dust off my enhanced "bust_spinlocks"
> patch which sets a little flag when we're doing an
> oops, BUG(), panic() or die(). If the flag
> is set, printk() just punches through the lock.
IMO to treat this as an exception it's not the right solution.
A better alternative is to flush one entry of Alan proposed queue on the
following conditions:
- in_interrupt() is true AND queue is full
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
ALSA project is http://www.alsa-project.org
sponsored by SuSE Linux http://www.suse.com
It sounds good!
-
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/
