lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 2/2] printk: Add more information about the printk caller
On Thu 2020-09-24 14:53:01, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2020-09-24 06:24:14, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:56:17PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > -static inline u32 printk_caller_id(void)
> > > +static enum printk_caller_ctx get_printk_caller_ctx(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (in_nmi())
> > > + return printk_ctx_nmi;
> > > +
> > > + if (in_irq())
> > > + return printk_ctx_hardirq;
> > > +
> > > + if (in_softirq())
> > > + return printk_ctx_softirq;
> > > +
> > > + return printk_ctx_task;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > in_softirq() here will be true for both softirq contexts *and*
> > BH-disabled regions. Did you mean in_serving_softirq() instead?
>
> Good question!
>
> I am not sure if people would want to distinguish these two
> situations.
>
> Otherwise, I think that is_softirq() more close to the meaning of
> in_irq(). They both describe a context where a new interrupt has
> to wait until the handling gets enabled again.

Grrrr, I wonder why I thought that in_irq() covered also the situation
when IRQ was disabled. It was likely my wish because disabled
interrupts are problem for printk() because the console might
cause a softlockup.

in_irq() actually behaves like in_serving_softirq().

I am confused and puzzled now. I wonder what contexts are actually
interesting for developers. It goes back to the ideas from Sergey
about preemption disabled, ...

/me feels shameful and is going to hide under a stone.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-24 15:39    [W:0.059 / U:1.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site