Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 8 Oct 2016 03:59:20 +0900 | From | Sergey Senozhatsky <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCHv2 6/7] printk: report printk recursion from alt_printk flush |
| |
On (10/06/16 17:41), Petr Mladek wrote: [..] > > + if (this_cpu_read(alt_printk_ctx) & ALT_PRINTK_RECURSION_MASK) { > > + const char *msg = "BUG: recent printk recursion!\n"; > > + > > + this_cpu_and(alt_printk_ctx, ~ALT_PRINTK_RECURSION_MASK); > > + alt_printk_flush_line(msg, strlen(msg)); > > + } > > + > > /* > > * This is just a paranoid check that nobody has manipulated > > * the buffer an unexpected way. If we printed something then > > @@ -290,6 +297,8 @@ static int vprintk_alt(const char *fmt, va_list args) > > { > > struct alt_printk_seq_buf *s = this_cpu_ptr(&alt_print_seq); > > > > + /* There is only one way to get here -- a printk recursion. */ > > + this_cpu_or(alt_printk_ctx, ALT_PRINTK_RECURSION_MASK); > > Is it really a bug? In most cases, the message that is being printed > describes a bug. We just allow to print it this alternative way to > avoid a possible deadlock. IMHO, this might cause a confusion.
just wanted to preserve the existing behavior, but can drop it.
> Instead I would print an error when we missed some messages > because the alternative buffer was not big enough.
ok, will do.
-ss
|  |