On Fri 2018-06-29 10:47:03, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (06/28/18 11:41), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > > > A side note: This nesting also handles recursive printk-s for us. > > > > > > NMI: > > > printk_nmi_enter > > > ftrace_dump > > > printk_nmi_direct_enter > > > vprintk_func > > > spin_lock(logbuf_lock) > > > vprintk_store > > > vsprintf > > > WARN_ON > > > vprintk_func > > > vprintk_nmi > > > > Uff, it seems that the current design is "good" at lest from some > > points of view. > > yep yep > > > > > + len = vprintk_store(0, LOGLEVEL_DEFAULT, NULL, 0, fmt, > > > > args); > > > > + raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); > > > > + defer_console(); > > > > + return len; > > > > + } > > > > > > So, maybe, something a bit better than defer_console(). > > > > I am not super happy with the name either. But wakeup_console(), > > schedule_console(), or queue_console() looked confusing. > > Hmm. defer_console() makes me think that we are dealing with that > fbcon=nodefer and deferred console takeover thing here. > > > So I summon Mr. Rostedt! > > Does schedule_console_output() look bad? > What about defer_console_output()?
I am fine with both. I slightly prefer defer_console_output() because I have "schedule" associated with deadlocks in this code path (context) ;-) Best Regards, Petr
