On 05/05/2014 11:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>
>> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than
>> "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
>> not (((printk(once(deferred))).
>>
> I agree with the
On 05/02/2014 04:05 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2014 15:09:14 -0700 John Stultz wrote:
>
>> Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
>> while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
>>
>> Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
>> printk
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than
> "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
> not (((printk(once(deferred))).
>
I agree with the above, but other than that you can add my:
Reviewed-by:
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than
> "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
> not (((printk(once(deferred))).
Or printk_once_removed()? Or does that only deal with cousins?
-- Steve
--
To
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Would printk_deferred_once be more logical than
printk_once_deferred? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
not (((printk(once(deferred))).
Or printk_once_removed()? Or does that only deal with cousins?
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Would printk_deferred_once be more logical than
printk_once_deferred? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
not (((printk(once(deferred))).
I agree with the above, but other than that you can add my:
On 05/02/2014 04:05 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2014 15:09:14 -0700 John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote:
Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this,
On 05/05/2014 11:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Would printk_deferred_once be more logical than
printk_once_deferred? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
not (((printk(once(deferred))).
I agree with
On Fri, 2 May 2014 15:09:14 -0700 John Stultz wrote:
> Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
> while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
>
> Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
> printk disables lockdep.
>
> When looking for possible
Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
printk disables lockdep.
When looking for possible solutions, one idea was to use a local buffer
and defer the printk to
Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
printk disables lockdep.
When looking for possible solutions, one idea was to use a local buffer
and defer the printk to
On Fri, 2 May 2014 15:09:14 -0700 John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote:
Recently, Jiri pointed out a potential deadlock when calling printk
while holding the timekeeping seqlock.
Annoyingly, the seqlock lockdep enablement doesn't catch this, as
printk disables lockdep.
When looking
12 matches
Mail list logo
