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?

Reply via email to