On 05/05/2014 11:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>
>> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than
>> "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
>> not (((printk(once(deferred))).
>>
> I agree with the above
On 05/02/2014 04:05 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2014 15:09:14 -0700 John Stultz wrote:
>
>> Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
>> while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
>>
>> Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
>> printk
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than
> "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
> not (((printk(once(deferred))).
>
I agree with the above, but other than that you can add my:
Reviewed-by: Steve
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than
> "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
> not (((printk(once(deferred))).
Or printk_once_removed()? Or does that only deal with cousins?
-- Steve
--
To unsu
On Fri, 2 May 2014 15:09:14 -0700 John Stultz wrote:
> Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
> while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
>
> Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
> printk disables lockdep.
>
> When looking for possible sol
Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
printk disables lockdep.
When looking for possible solutions, one idea was to use a local buffer
and defer the printk to lat
6 matches
Mail list logo
