* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > A bit risky - it's quite an expansion of code which no longer can
> > > call printk.
> > >
> > > You might want to take that WARN_ON out of __update_rq_clock() ;)
> >
> > hm, dont we already detect printk recursions and turn them into a
> > silent return instead of a hang/crash?
>
> We'll pop the locks and will proceed to do the nested printk. So
> __update_rq_clock() will need rather a lot of stack ;)
yeah. That behavior of printk is rather fragile. I think my previous
patch should handle all such incidents.
Ingo
--
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]
