On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:31:51 +0100 Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> Do people have issues with the current upstream printk() or > still even with Steven's patch? > > My current view is that Steven's patch could not make things > worse. I was afraid of possible deadlock but it seems that I was > wrong. Other than that the patch should make things just better > because it allows to pass the work from time to time a safe way. > > Of course, there is a chance that it will pass the work from > a safe context to atomic one. But there was the same chance that > the work already started in the atomic context. Therefore statistically > this should not make things worse. > > This is why I suggest to start with Steven's solution. If people > would still see problems in the real life then we could think > about how to fix it. It is quite likely that we would need to add > offloading to the kthreads in the end but there is a chance... > > In each case, I think that is better to split in into > two or even more steps than introducing one mega-complex > change. And given the many-years resistance against offloading > I tend to start with Steven's approach. THANK YOU!!! This is exactly what I'm trying to convey. > > Does this make some sense, please? It definitely does to me :-) -- Steve
