Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts

["Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>]

On 6/1/06, Antonino A. Daplas <adaplas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jon Smirl wrote:
> > On 6/1/06, Antonino A. Daplas <adaplas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Jon Smirl wrote:
> >> > On 6/1/06, D. Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> 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? If it always has the semaphore then
interupt context printk's aren't blocked.

I think that interrupt context printk's work today, I have definitely
seen one printk get inserted into the middle of another on my console.
How else could you achieve that?

--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/