On Čt 01-06-06 17:48:57, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Antonino A. Daplas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Jon Smirl wrote:
> >> On 6/1/06, Antonino A. Daplas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Jon Smirl wrote:
> >>> > On 6/1/06, D. Hazelton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Console writes are done with the console semaphore held. printk will
> >also
> >>> just write to the log buffer and defer the actual console printing
> >>> for later, by the next or current process that will grab the semaphore.
> >>
> >> That was my original position too. But Alan Cox has drilled it into me
> >> that this is not acceptable for printks in interrupt context, they
> >> need to print there and not be deferred.
> >>
> >
> >Just to clarify, it's not my position, that's how the current printk code
> >works.
>
> I haven't looked at the code, but if there is just normal console
> running and nothing like X is around, doesn't the console system
> always have the semaphore?
Not if foreground code is already printing something. Fortunately we
do not spend most of time printing text; that's why printk from
interrupt usually works.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
