Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-26,: Re: console_lock too early in printk???

# Re: console_lock too early in printk???

James Simmons (jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Sat, 1 Jul 2000 09:07:32 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
- Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"

> Moral of this story: Don't you DARE use printk for debugging, you might
> introduce more problems than you started with. :)

Especially with video drivers :-(

> On a more serious note... couldn't issues like these be temporarily side
> stepped by making the console_lock recursive, similar to the monster
> kernel_lock? You could keep one copy of the entrance count with the lock
> itself, rather than one copy each in the "current" task_struct...

If we really want to fix this problem we have to rethink the console lock.
See my other post.

-
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: Keith Owens: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
- Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"