> +static size_t info_print_caller_id(char *buf, size_t size,
> +const struct printk_caller *caller) {
> + enum printk_caller_ctx ctx;
> +
> + ctx = printk_to_caller_ctx(caller->cpu_ctx);
> +
> + if (ctx == printk_ctx_task)
> + return snprintf
On Fri 2020-09-25 09:54:00, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/09/24 15:38), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > G, I wonder why I thought that in_irq() covered also the situation
> > when IRQ was disabled. It was likely my wish because disabled
> > interrupts are problem for printk() because the
On (20/09/24 15:38), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
>
> G, I wonder why I thought that in_irq() covered also the situation
> when IRQ was disabled. It was likely my wish because disabled
> interrupts are problem for printk() because the console might
> cause a softlockup.
preempt_disable() can also t
On Thu 2020-09-24 14:53:01, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2020-09-24 06:24:14, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:56:17PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > -static inline u32 printk_caller_id(void)
> > > +static enum printk_caller_ctx get_printk_caller_ctx(void)
> > >
On Thu 2020-09-24 10:29:31, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-09-24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > A question. Suppose we have a task which does
> >
> > CPU0
> >
> > pr_err(...);
> >
> > preempt_disable();
> > pr_err(...);
> > preempt_enable();
> >
> > pr_err(...);
> >
> > r
On Thu 2020-09-24 11:17:56, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/09/23 15:56), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > /*
> > * To reduce unnecessarily reopening, first check if the descriptor
> > -* state and caller ID are correct.
> > +* state and caller infromation are correct.
> > */
On Thu 2020-09-24 06:24:14, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:56:17PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> ...
> >
> > -static inline u32 printk_caller_id(void)
> > +static enum printk_caller_ctx get_printk_caller_ctx(void)
> > +{
> > + if (in_nmi())
> > + return printk_ctx_nm
On Thu 2020-09-24 10:40:10, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/09/23 15:56), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The information about the printk caller has been added by the commit
> > 15ff2069cb7f967da ("printk: Add caller information to printk() output.").
> > The main motivation was to reconstruct original
On 2020-09-24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> A question. Suppose we have a task which does
>
> CPU0
>
> pr_err(...);
>
> preempt_disable();
> pr_err(...);
> preempt_enable();
>
> pr_err(...);
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> pr_info(...);
> rcu_read_unlock
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:56:17PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
...
>
> -static inline u32 printk_caller_id(void)
> +static enum printk_caller_ctx get_printk_caller_ctx(void)
> +{
> + if (in_nmi())
> + return printk_ctx_nmi;
> +
> + if (in_irq())
> + return printk_ctx_h
On (20/09/23 15:56), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> /*
>* To reduce unnecessarily reopening, first check if the descriptor
> - * state and caller ID are correct.
> + * state and caller infromation are correct.
>*/
> - d_state = desc_read(desc_ring, id, &desc, NULL, &c
On (20/09/23 15:56), Petr Mladek wrote:
> The information about the printk caller has been added by the commit
> 15ff2069cb7f967da ("printk: Add caller information to printk() output.").
> The main motivation was to reconstruct original messages when they
> longer output from different CPUs got mix
The information about the printk caller has been added by the commit
15ff2069cb7f967da ("printk: Add caller information to printk() output.").
The main motivation was to reconstruct original messages when they
longer output from different CPUs got mixed.
But there are more usecases. The number of
13 matches
Mail list logo
