On (01/15/18 07:08), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:55:37 +0100
> Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not fixing console_unlock(), I'm fixing printk(). BTW, all my
> > > kernels are CONFIG_PREEMPT (I'm a RT guy), my mind thinks more about
> > > PREEMPT kernels than !PREEMPT ones.
> >
> > I would say that the patch improves also console_unlock() but only in
> > non-preemttive context.
> >
> > By other words, it makes console_unlock() finite in preemptible context
> > (limited by buffer size). It might still be unlimited in
> > non-preemtible context.
>
> Since I'm worried most about printk(), I would argue to make printk
> console unlock always non-preempt.
+1
// The next stop is "victims of O(logbuf) memorial" station :)
-ss
