Re: oops pauser.

[Josef Sipek <jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:12:59AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Josef Sipek <jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> > That's something to watch out for...If you say have:
> > 
> > printk(KERN_DEBUG "fooo.....");
> > do_foo();
> > printk(KERN_DEBUG "done.\n");
> 
> dont do it. It is better to have the time stamps for both and to have atomic
> prints.

First of all, the above code is to just illustrate a point. And as a matter of
fact it may not even work if some other kernel thread prints something while
do_foo() is executing, the whole thing will get screwed up.

If I remember correctly, I the second line of the "sample" code, will _NOT_
produce a timestamp. So, the output will be:

[1234567.123456] fooo.....<7>done.

where, the timestamp is that of the first printk.

> In fact I would disallow this and add automatic linebreaks.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd just let the kernel janitors people have fun with
the existing code :)

Jeff.