Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (06/30/17 19:18), Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > I'm still thinking about Steven's proposals; but we will need offloading > > > anyways, so the bits we are talking about here are important regardless > > > the direction printk design will take, I think. > > > > Is there a chance that printk() waits for only data queued by that printk() > > call (exception will be printk() from NMI). > > hm, I don't think this can be done easily... consider > > console_lock(); > printk(); > printk(); > ... -> this guys will wait forever. nothing > flushes the logbuf. > printk(); > console_unlock();
Can't we remove console_lock()/console_unlock() from printk() ? I think that printk() depends on console_unlock() is complicating.
