>> I'm not even sure that kmalloc during printk is possible, since
>> printk might be called during kernel init, before all the kmem caches
>> are created. (have no kernel tree here to check this, alas)
>
>Agreed! I _DEFINATELY_ would not want to generally call kmalloc from
>printk... even if just because of the performance hit. This _ONLY_ calls
>kmalloc in a situation that would otherwise deadlock. As far as I know,
>this situation can only be induced when debugging (because there are no
>printks in the VM stuff by default :), and if someone is debugging, it
>would be better to just drop the message than to panic the system due to
>debug messages... :) Hell we could even just set a flat that signifies
>"some message was dropped" and the next time prink is entered (safely) it
>would print out a message that indicates the situation...
flag seems very reasonable. calling kmalloc could bring some nasty suprises...
>
>-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/
>
>
-
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 - 21:00:19 EST