> This statement of mine was grade-A bollocks. printk cannot of
> course call down(). It needs to use __down_trylock and buffer
> it up if it fails. (faster, too!)
Okay. I'm going to start working on this tomorrow.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Andrew Morton writes:
> The subtler problem will be interrupt-capable drivers which
> do a bare spin_lock() to serialise wrt their interrupt routines,
> relying upon interrupts being disabled. They'll be deadlocky
> and will need changing. That's trivial to find and fix though.
Uhh, what if
James Simmons wrote:
> ...
> By you saying couldn't be acquired from interrupt context do you mean
> from a process context or do you mean it failed to aquire it while in
> the interrupt context?
Actually, printk() must always use __down_trylock().
> > - Get rid of console_tasklet. Do it in
James Simmons wrote:
...
By you saying couldn't be acquired from interrupt context do you mean
from a process context or do you mean it failed to aquire it while in
the interrupt context?
Actually, printk() must always use __down_trylock().
- Get rid of console_tasklet. Do it in process
This statement of mine was grade-A bollocks. printk cannot of
course call down(). It needs to use __down_trylock and buffer
it up if it fails. (faster, too!)
Okay. I'm going to start working on this tomorrow.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Andrew Morton writes:
The subtler problem will be interrupt-capable drivers which
do a bare spin_lock() to serialise wrt their interrupt routines,
relying upon interrupts being disabled. They'll be deadlocky
and will need changing. That's trivial to find and fix though.
Uhh, what if you
> heh.
>
> I'm actually planning on grabbing console_lock and thoroughly strangling
> it
Ha Ha!!
> - Use a semaphore for serialisation.
I think this would be the best solution as well.
> - For printk in interrupt context, grab the
> semaphore (yes, you can do this).
Don't forget about
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> - Get rid of the special printk buffer - share the
> log buffer. (Implies writes to console
> devices will be broken into two writes when they
> wrap around).
> - Teach vsprintf to print into a circular buffer
> (snprintf thus comes for
On 18 Jan 01 at 0:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Assumption:
> - Once the system is up and running, it's always safe to
> call down() when in_interrupt() returns false - probably
> not the case in parts of the exit path - tough.
>
> Anyway, that's the thoughtware. Sound sane?
Do not forget to
James Simmons wrote:
>
> Some time ago a intel i810 framebuffer driver was written. It only worked
> for 2.2.X. With 2.4.X a spinlock is used in the upper layers of the
> console system. Sooner or later we are going to run into the situtation
> where we will have graphics hardware which has no
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
- Get rid of the special printk buffer - share the
log buffer. (Implies writes to console
devices will be broken into two writes when they
wrap around).
- Teach vsprintf to print into a circular buffer
(snprintf thus comes for free).
On 18 Jan 01 at 0:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
Assumption:
- Once the system is up and running, it's always safe to
call down() when in_interrupt() returns false - probably
not the case in parts of the exit path - tough.
Anyway, that's the thoughtware. Sound sane?
Do not forget to
James Simmons wrote:
Some time ago a intel i810 framebuffer driver was written. It only worked
for 2.2.X. With 2.4.X a spinlock is used in the upper layers of the
console system. Sooner or later we are going to run into the situtation
where we will have graphics hardware which has no vga
heh.
I'm actually planning on grabbing console_lock and thoroughly strangling
it
Ha Ha!!
- Use a semaphore for serialisation.
I think this would be the best solution as well.
- For printk in interrupt context, grab the
semaphore (yes, you can do this).
Don't forget about the idle
Some time ago a intel i810 framebuffer driver was written. It only worked
for 2.2.X. With 2.4.X a spinlock is used in the upper layers of the
console system. Sooner or later we are going to run into the situtation
where we will have graphics hardware which has no vga core and wih be
purely
Some time ago a intel i810 framebuffer driver was written. It only worked
for 2.2.X. With 2.4.X a spinlock is used in the upper layers of the
console system. Sooner or later we are going to run into the situtation
where we will have graphics hardware which has no vga core and wih be
purely
16 matches
Mail list logo
