Re: [RFC][PATCHv5 3/7] printk: introduce per-cpu safe_print seq buffer

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (12/12/16 14:54), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > > Hmm, I wanted to describe why we need another per-CPU buffer in NMI
> > > and I am not sure that we really need it.
> > 
> > NMI-printk can interrupt safe-printk's vsnprintf() in the middle of
> > the "while (*fmt)" loop: safe-priNMI-PRINTK
> 
> But this already happens when any of the WARNs is triggered
> inside vsnprintf(). Either this is safe or we are in
> trouble.
[..]
> Well, I am not sure if we should bother.

well, I'd probably agree that we shouldn't care. I'd may be even
say that nested warnings from vsnprintf() are not so important to
over-complicated everything (comparing to lost NMI-printk messages,
which are really important).


> Well, is it that bad to ask for better comments?

ok, I'll take a look. gotta re-base the series once again anyway.

> Or am I dumb and it was all obvious?

of course no! I never said that. never! :)
my apologies.

	-ss