Chris Lattner wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying printk is unusable or horrendously
> unstable... I'm just saying that I got bit by it and I'm trying to get a
> fix in so other people don't run into similar things in the future. The
> patches I proposed aim to be minimal patches that impact the fewest
> subsystems possible and affect performance the least amount
> possible. Within this constraint, I'm trying to make printk _more_ robust
> (which is good, because debugging tools get used/misused in the worst
> ways) without redesigning the whole system.
I'm trying to whittle "make more robust" into something more concrete.
Currently there is a namespace collision with 'buf' in printk.c (your
patch #4), but I just don't see anything more than that. Since 'buf' is
protected by console_lock currently, things seem to be otherwise ok.
Recursive printk? Lost messages? Your patch #4 seems like just a bunch
of extra code for rare if not impossible cases.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong!
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | Building 1024 | Make my funk the p-funk. MandrakeSoft, Inc. |- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST