On Mon 2021-05-17 08:21:12, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:59 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > While long fancy messages have a higher probability of being seen than
> > small messages, they may scroll of the screen fast, if visible at all,
> > and may still be missed.
On Sun 2021-04-11 14:08:14, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 21:52 +0200, John Ogness wrote:
> > I'd rather fix dev_info callers to allow pr_cont and then fix any code
> > that is using this workaround.
>
> Assuming you mean all dev_() uses, me too.
>
> > And if the print maintainers
On Sun 2021-04-11 21:52:59, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-04-11, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >>> The second line is emitted via 'pr_cont', which causes it to have a
> >>> different ('warn') loglevel compared to the previous line ('info').
> >>>
> >>> Commit 9a295ff0ffc9 attempted to rectify this
On Wed 2021-03-31 09:40:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:31:03 +0200
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > This reduces kernel size by ca. 0.5 KiB.
>
> If you are worried about size, disable tracing and it will go away
> entirely. 0.5KiB is a drop in the bucket compared to what
On Mon 2018-11-26 13:57:09, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/23/18 12:48), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > > This should make serial consoles re-entrant.
> > > So printk->console_driver_write() hopefully will not deadlock.
> >
> > Is the re-entrance safe
On Fri 2018-11-23 11:40:48, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/22/18 11:16), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So maybe we need to switch debug objects print-outs to _always_
> > > printk_deferred(). Debug objects can be used in code which cannot
> > > do direct printk() - timekeeping is just one
On Thu 2018-11-22 15:29:35, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/22/2018 11:02 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Anyway, I wonder what was the primary motivation for this patch.
> > Was it the system hang? Or was it lockdep report about nesting
> > two terminal locks: db->lock, po
On Thu 2018-11-22 14:57:02, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/21/2018 09:04 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (11/21/18 11:49), Waiman Long wrote:
> > [..]
> >>> case ODEBUG_STATE_ACTIVE:
> >>> - debug_print_object(obj, "init");
> >>> state = obj->state;
> >>>
On Thu 2018-11-22 15:17:52, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/22/2018 10:33 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Mon 2018-11-19 13:55:18, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> By making the object hash locks nestable terminal locks, we can avoid
> >> a bunch of unnecessary lockdep validati
On Thu 2018-11-22 11:04:22, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/21/18 11:49), Waiman Long wrote:
> [..]
> > > case ODEBUG_STATE_ACTIVE:
> > > - debug_print_object(obj, "init");
> > > state = obj->state;
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(>lock, flags);
> > > +
On Mon 2018-11-19 13:55:18, Waiman Long wrote:
> By making the object hash locks nestable terminal locks, we can avoid
> a bunch of unnecessary lockdep validations as well as saving space
> in the lockdep tables.
Please, explain which terminal lock might be nested.
Hmm, it would hide eventual
11 matches
Mail list logo
