On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:36 -0400
"Mike Frysinger" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:19:12 -0400
> > Robin Getz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun 22 Jul 2007 19:50, Mike Frysinger pondered:
> > > >
> > > > i think the attached two functions account for what Robin and Andrew
> > > > were thinking ...
> > >
> > > A note about why/when grab_lock would be set to zero (pre-kernel init, or
> > > OOPs) might be nice.
> >
> > Definitely.
> >
> > The pre-kernel init shouldn't be an issue: logbuf_lock is initialised at
> > compile time.
> >
> > At oops time we could possibly use oops_in_progress to work out whether to
> > avoid taking the lock. That's not terribly nice, but nor is it nice for
> > callers to know about printk internals.
>
> maybe, but for early debug users (the reason we wanted this
> originally), it wouldnt be an oops in progress ... but i guess we can
> just as easily set oops_in_progress to 1 in our code before calling
> this function to keep from having to worry over locks from being
> doubly grabbed.
I don't immediately see how logbuf_lock could be doubly grabbed. Only if
you're calling this from hard irq context?
-
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]
