> > I agree completely. The point of my patch was that by adding a few (or
> > 100s, not terribly important) cycles to the printk code path we can make
> > it MUCH more likely for printk's to come out... making printk (which I see
> > as a debugging tool) robust is a very important thing to do.
> I don't think printk is as unstable as you make it out to be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying printk is unusable or horrendously
unstable... I'm just saying that I got bit by it and I'm trying to get a
fix in so other people don't run into similar things in the future. The
patches I proposed aim to be minimal patches that impact the fewest
subsystems possible and affect performance the least amount
possible. Within this constraint, I'm trying to make printk _more_ robust
(which is good, because debugging tools get used/misused in the worst
ways) without redesigning the whole system.
> Now the console system is another story... :)
<chant>2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5...</chant>
:)
-Chris
-
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 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST