Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] printk: Poke printk extra hard

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 08:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK_DEBUG
> > > > +void printk_init(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct rq *rq;
> > > > +       unsigned long flags;
> > > > +
> > > > +       local_irq_save(flags);
> > > > +       rq = this_rq();
> > > > +       raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > > > +       printk(KERN_DEBUG "printk: echo echo echo..\n");
> > > > +       raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > > > +       local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > 
> > > Ok, I can't really say that I think this is worth a config option like this.
> > > 
> > > Maybe an example module or something?
> 
> I really really really don't want to expose struct rq to 
> modules, that's just asking for trouble. But yeah, I know what 
> you mean with not being worth the config option, but then, I 
> thought I might as well post it, it can't be more horrible 
> than the sem patch, can it ;-)

Could be made part of the locking self-tests - that way it does 
not add an extra config option! ;-)

Thanks,

	Ingo