Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Gilboa Davara wrote:
printk(fmt, buffer);
+
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&symbol_lock, flags);
But I still don't much like this :-(
I must say I agree with Satyam here.
Locking in the panic path might leave us without some critical debug
information, which is much more important than all this.
Maybe it would be better to change the print_symbol interface to avoid
having a "char buffer[KSYM_SYMBOL_LEN];" at all.
Most print_symbol callers use something like "yada yada %s" as the
format string, with an optional "\n" in the end.
if we change the interface from "print_symbol(fmt, addr)" to
"print_symbol(prefix, addr, int newline)" we can simply do:
printk(prefix);
printk_symbol(addr);
if (newline)
printk("\n");
where "printk_symbol" is a new function that does the same as
sprint_symbol, but does "printk" instead of "sprintf".
This should reduce immensely the stack usage of print_symbol without the
need for locking.
Of course this requires changing _all_ callers of print_symbol to use
the new interface, but these are less than 100 ;)
Comments?
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me."
-
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]
