From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: printk() vs tty_io
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:56:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323943005.18942.18.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwu+oSPtqfN+bS3_fHXWU+VMd5BGhNd=J4MjuAJZT+fTQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 07:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ugh. There is a *ton* of stuff inside that serial port lock,
> including, yes, the uart_write_wakeup().
>
> And it does look like it's protecting port->tty or something, so I
> don't see that we can just move the wakeup to outside the lock, which
> was my first reaction.
We probably could, I can have a closer look, but the main question is,
are we going to commit to no wakeups from console implementations? That
would mean removing the USB serial console support and other such stuff.
[ Personally I think USB serial console is insane, if you really need
something like that use the ehci-dbgp thing, that at least has a chance
of working. ]
If we're not going to commit to that (which would be valid choice given
where we are), my printk efforts are pointless and I'll reconsider.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-15 9:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-13 19:33 printk() vs tty_io Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-13 23:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-14 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 10:43 ` Alan Cox
2011-12-14 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 14:05 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-12-14 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 15:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-15 9:56 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-12-15 10:32 ` Alan Cox
2011-12-15 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-15 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-15 18:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-15 21:22 ` Alan Cox
2011-12-16 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-15 19:02 ` Greg KH
2011-12-14 6:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-14 9:40 ` [PATCH] arch, early_printk: Consolidate early_printk() implementations Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 9:41 ` [PATCH] lockdep: Enable earlyprintk output Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 9:43 ` printk() vs tty_io Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 9:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-21 12:03 ` Stijn Devriendt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1323943005.18942.18.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox