Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-10-05 Thread Petr Mladek
On Fri 2016-09-30 09:48:32, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (09/29/16 13:28), Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Wed 2016-09-28 10:18:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > > > > by a

Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-10-05 Thread Petr Mladek
On Fri 2016-09-30 09:48:32, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (09/29/16 13:28), Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Wed 2016-09-28 10:18:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > > > > by a

Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-09-29 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (09/29/16 13:28), Petr Mladek wrote: > On Wed 2016-09-28 10:18:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > > > by a preempt_count-like variable that could track the printk context. > > > > > >

Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-09-29 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (09/29/16 13:28), Petr Mladek wrote: > On Wed 2016-09-28 10:18:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > > > by a preempt_count-like variable that could track the printk context. > > > > > >

Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-09-29 Thread Petr Mladek
On Wed 2016-09-28 10:18:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > > by a preempt_count-like variable that could track the printk context. > > > > I know that Sergey has another ideas in this area.

Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-09-29 Thread Petr Mladek
On Wed 2016-09-28 10:18:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > > by a preempt_count-like variable that could track the printk context. > > > > I know that Sergey has another ideas in this area.

Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-09-27 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > by a preempt_count-like variable that could track the printk context. > > I know that Sergey has another ideas in this area. But I wanted to see > how this approach would look like. well,

Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()

2016-09-27 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote: > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer > by a preempt_count-like variable that could track the printk context. > > I know that Sergey has another ideas in this area. But I wanted to see > how this approach would look like. well,