On 20.06.2009 03:04, ron minnich wrote: >> True, but our console requirements for both versions are pretty minimal >> and I think we showed in v3 that a one-size-fits-all printk can work fine. >> > > I do not recall that v3 printk was heavily tested with smp. In fact > it's not smp safe from my reading of the code. > > Actually, I can verify that v3 printk works badly on multi-core, since > I saw the intermixed output during my abortive attempt at getting core > 2 going on v3. v3 does NOT solve the problem. >
True, because it does not use locking. v3 should be easy to convert to locking which actually works. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
