From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756143Ab2EJUJq (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2012 16:09:46 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:51442 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755813Ab2EJUJo (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2012 16:09:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4FAC2085.7030002@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:09:41 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kay Sievers CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , William Douglas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Regression due to 7ff9554 "printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length record buffer" References: <4FAAB815.5040001@wwwdotorg.org> <4FAC1D09.1070004@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/10/2012 02:06 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/09/2012 12:31 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> For me, next-20120508 prints nothing when booted, and I think also >>> hangs. To solve this, I reverted: >>> >>> 7ff9554 printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length record buffer >>> >>> In order to build, I also had to revert: >>> >>> c4e00da driver-core: extend dev_printk() to pass structured data >>> >>> Note: I'm running on an ARM system using a serial console, with >>> earlyprintk enabled. >> >> This issue still occurs in next-20120510. >> >> I've tracked it down to the assignment of msg->ts_nsec near the end of >> log_store(). If I comment this out, everything works. The problem is the >> assignment, not the call to local_clock(): >> >> fails: >> msg->ts_nsec = local_clock(); >> fails: >> msg->ts_nsec = 0;//local_clock(); >> works: >> //msg->ts_nsec = local_clock(); > > Weird. > > What happens if you change it to: > cpu_clock(logbuf_cpu); > ? > > If it works, the timestamps look ok? I doubt that would work - after all, assigning 0 fails, but not performing the assignment at all works. But, I'll go try it...