Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Only when things are bad. Im not arguing about that point just your cycle
> > counts. The other concern is that its better for printk to get a message
> > out than hang in a lock
>
> I agree completely. The point of my patch was that by adding a few (or
> 100s, not terribly important) cycles to the printk code path we can make
> it MUCH more likely for printk's to come out... making printk (which I see
> as a debugging tool) robust is a very important thing to do.
I don't think printk is as unstable as you make it out to be.
Now the console system is another story... :)
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