Hi!
> > > It seems draconian to drain the entire buffer with ints disabled.
> > > Is it possible to break this up and send out smaller chunks
> > > at a time? Maybe by putting a chunk loop in release_console_sem()?
> >
> > Well, I believe someone got
> >
> > DDetetccctted ed 113223 HHzz CPUCPU
> >
> > in his dmesg, and now we have this 'draconian' locking. How can we
> > prevent mangled messages without it?
>
> The main interest seems to be to protect from mixed printk output
> between different CPUs in process context. I don't think it would be
> that bad if interrupts come and output error messages in the middle of a
> printk, isn't it ?
>
> therefore, could we do something like :
>
>
> if (!in_irq())
> spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> ...
> if (!in_irq())
> spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
>
> ? (yes, this is a crazy idea)
Two messages in atomic sections on different cpus could still be mixed
:-). But yes, something like this may be the way to go.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
