On 2021-03-29, John Ogness wrote:
>> Will you call console write() callback with irq enabled from the
>> kthread?
>
> No. That defeats the fundamental purpose of this entire rework
> excercise. ;-)
Sorry, I misread your question. The answer is "yes". We want to avoid a
local_irq_save() when
On 2021-03-29, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I wonder if some console drivers rely on the fact that the write()
> callback is called with interrupts disabled.
>
> IMHO, it would be a bug when any write() callback expects that
> callers disabled the interrupts.
Agreed.
> Do you plan to remove the
On Fri 2021-03-26 12:12:37, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-23, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> >> -
> >>if (seq != prb_next_seq(_rb_static)) {
> >>pr_err("dropped %llu messages\n",
> >>
On 2021-03-23, Petr Mladek wrote:
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -1142,8 +1126,6 @@ void __init setup_log_buf(int early)
>> new_descs, ilog2(new_descs_count),
>> new_infos);
>>
>> -printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
>> -
>>
On Wed 2021-03-17 00:33:25, John Ogness wrote:
> With @logbuf_lock removed, the high level printk functions for
> storing messages are lockless. Messages can be stored from any
> context, so there is no need for the NMI and safe buffers anymore.
> Remove the NMI and safe buffers.
>
> Although the
On Mon 2021-03-22 22:58:47, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-22, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Mon 2021-03-22 12:16:15, John Ogness wrote:
> >> On 2021-03-21, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >> >> @@ -369,7 +70,10 @@ __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_func(const char *fmt,
> >> >> va_list args)
> >> >>
On 2021-03-22, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2021-03-22 12:16:15, John Ogness wrote:
>> On 2021-03-21, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> >> @@ -369,7 +70,10 @@ __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_func(const char *fmt,
>> >> va_list args)
>> >>* Use the main logbuf even in NMI. But avoid calling console
>>
On Mon 2021-03-22 12:16:15, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-21, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >> @@ -369,7 +70,10 @@ __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_func(const char *fmt,
> >> va_list args)
> >> * Use the main logbuf even in NMI. But avoid calling console
> >> * drivers that might have their
On 2021-03-21, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> @@ -369,7 +70,10 @@ __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_func(const char *fmt, va_list
>> args)
>> * Use the main logbuf even in NMI. But avoid calling console
>> * drivers that might have their own locks.
>> */
>> -if
On (21/03/17 00:33), John Ogness wrote:
[..]
> void printk_nmi_direct_enter(void)
> {
> @@ -324,27 +44,8 @@ void printk_nmi_direct_exit(void)
> this_cpu_and(printk_context, ~PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK);
> }
>
> -#else
> -
> -static __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_nmi(const char *fmt,
With @logbuf_lock removed, the high level printk functions for
storing messages are lockless. Messages can be stored from any
context, so there is no need for the NMI and safe buffers anymore.
Remove the NMI and safe buffers.
Although the safe buffers are removed, the NMI and safe context
11 matches
Mail list logo
