> +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
12 matches
Mail list logo
