From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754867Ab1LVJF5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:05:57 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59937 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753670Ab1LVJFx (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:05:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:03:52 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Ted Ts'o" , Greg KH , Thomas Gleixner , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] printk: Poke printk extra hard Message-ID: <20111222090352.GA11831@elte.hu> References: <20111221105739.798864333@chello.nl> <20111221111143.620776435@chello.nl> <20111222070212.GA9593@elte.hu> <1324543413.24803.7.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1324543413.24803.7.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 08:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra 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