On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 11:25 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/29/17 18:52), Joe Perches wrote:
> [..]
> > > We could simply add a seq_buf_printk() that is implemented in the printk
> > > proper, to parse the seq_buf buffer properly, and add the timestamps and
> > > such.
> >
> > No need. printk would already add timestamps.
>
> the idea is not to do printk() on that seq buffer at all, but to
> log_store(), atomically, seq buffer messages
>
> spin_lock(&logbuf_lock)
> while (offset < seq_buffer->len) {
> ...
> log_store(seq->buffer + offset);
> ...
> }
> spin_unlock(&logbuf_unlock)
Why?
What's wrong with a simple printk?
It'd still do a log_store.
