On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 21:54 +0200, "Jan H. Schönherr" wrote: > Am 08.10.2012 21:24, schrieb Kay Sievers: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM, "Jan H. Schönherr" > >>> Given that I'm able to fix the racing case, would you be in favor of > >>> this approach, or should we stick to the earlier version? > >> > >> I'm open to everything that makes sense. Let's see how it looks and we > >> can decide when we have something that passes the tests. [] > > any updates, did you try something else? > > Or should we merge the first version for now? [] > My current version does mostly well for race-printk()s, now. But > there's still one issue to resolve and some polishing to do. > > If we can afford to wait a little longer, we might get a nicer > solution (and avoid a possible mostly-revert later).
I've also got a large refactoring patch series to printk.c (move and declutter) I was going to submit post rc-1. No doubt there'll be several conflicts there too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
