Re: [PATCH] Make printk lock when appropriate...

Manfred Spraul (manfred@colorfullife.com)
Sat, 01 Jul 2000 09:42:36 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: James H. Cloos Jr.: "Re: [patch] Remove the magic entries from /proc/mounts"
Previous message: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Maybe in reply to: Chris Lattner: "[PATCH] Make printk lock when appropriate..."
Next in thread: Keith Owens: "Re: [PATCH] Make printk lock when appropriate..."

Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> Okay, here's an official patch against 2.4.0test2... that moves the lock
> of the console lock to after the vsprintf. It would be nice if this went
> into 2.4.0 final, especially since it's such a trivial change...
>

Sorry, but the patch is wrong.

"buf" is a static variable, defined in line 28 [printk.c]

-- Manfred

- 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/

Next message: James H. Cloos Jr.: "Re: [patch] Remove the magic entries from /proc/mounts"
Previous message: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Maybe in reply to: Chris Lattner: "[PATCH] Make printk lock when appropriate..."
Next in thread: Keith Owens: "Re: [PATCH] Make printk lock when appropriate..."