Keith Owens wrote:
>
> What about this code instead of spin_lock_irqsave? Pity we do not have
> spin_trylock_irqsave();
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> if (!spin_trylock(&console_lock)) {
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> return(0);
> }
If somebody tries to call printk with console_lock held then something
very bad is happening. That message wants to come out.
I suggest that rather than returning we should bust the spinlock, as is
done in the NMI handler (arch/i386/kernel/traps.c). Move that code to
printk.
And let's move that dopey `buf' declaration inside printk() and make it
static.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 11:20:06 EDT