On Wed, 21 Sep, at 05:58:27PM, Petr Mladek wrote: > > I am not sure how the above call chain is realistic. But adding > WARN_ON() into the scheduler paths is risky in general.
It's not clear to me why this should be the case. WARN_ON() calls have existed in the scheduler paths since forever. If the new async printk patches make that impossible then surely they need fixing, not the scheduler?