Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/25] printk: new implementation

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (03/13/19 18:27), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Does this mean we keep irq_work part or we bury it and solve it by other
> > means?
>
> That's a very good question. Because if we add console_trylock()
> to printk(), then we can't invoke ->atomic() consoles when console_sem
> is already locked, because one of the registered drivers is currently
> being modified by a 3rd party and printk(), thus, must stay away.
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	    one of the drivers or the list itself.

	-ss