From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/25] printk: new implementation Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:06:53 +0900 Message-ID: <20190313100653.GA23478@jagdpanzerIV> References: <874l9721hf.fsf@linutronix.de> <20190304052335.GA6648@jagdpanzerIV> <87lg1rggcz.fsf@linutronix.de> <20190311105411.GA368@jagdpanzerIV> <20190312123857.juatd6fwtfmqajze@pathway.suse.cz> <874l8815uc.fsf@linutronix.de> <20190313021534.GB783@jagdpanzerIV> <87d0mv9off.fsf@linutronix.de> <20190313084028.f2m4qhxd5sjzzawr@linutronix.de> <20190313092759.GA10060@jagdpanzerIV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190313092759.GA10060@jagdpanzerIV> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Sebastian Siewior , John Ogness , Petr Mladek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Daniel Wang , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Cox , Jiri Slaby , Peter Feiner , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On (03/13/19 18:27), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Does this mean we keep irq_work part or we bury it and solve it by other > > means? > > That's a very good question. Because if we add console_trylock() > to printk(), then we can't invoke ->atomic() consoles when console_sem > is already locked, because one of the registered drivers is currently > being modified by a 3rd party and printk(), thus, must stay away. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ one of the drivers or the list itself. -ss