* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A bit risky - it's quite an expansion of code which no longer can
> > > call printk.
> > >
> > > You might want to take that WARN_ON out of __update_rq_clock() ;)
> >
> > hm, dont we already detect printk recursions and turn them into a
> > silent return instead of a hang/crash?
>
> We'll pop the locks and will proceed to do the nested printk. So
> __update_rq_clock() will need rather a lot of stack ;)
yeah. That behavior of printk is rather fragile. I think my previous
patch should handle all such incidents.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
