Re: console_lock too early in printk???

From: James Simmons (jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 09:07:32 EDT

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"

Previous message: Michael Borrelli: "Re: Low Latency Patch"
In reply to: Chris Lattner: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
Next in thread: Aki M Laukkanen: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> Moral of this story: Don't you DARE use printk for debugging, you might
> introduce more problems than you started with. :)

Especially with video drivers :-(

> On a more serious note... couldn't issues like these be temporarily side
> stepped by making the console_lock recursive, similar to the monster
> kernel_lock? You could keep one copy of the entrance count with the lock
> itself, rather than one copy each in the "current" task_struct...

If we really want to fix this problem we have to rethink the console lock.
See my other post.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Previous message: Michael Borrelli: "Re: Low Latency Patch"
In reply to: Chris Lattner: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
Next in thread: Aki M Laukkanen: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 09:06:42 EDT