On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:55:37 +0100 Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm not fixing console_unlock(), I'm fixing printk(). BTW, all my > > kernels are CONFIG_PREEMPT (I'm a RT guy), my mind thinks more about > > PREEMPT kernels than !PREEMPT ones. > > I would say that the patch improves also console_unlock() but only in > non-preemttive context. > > By other words, it makes console_unlock() finite in preemptible context > (limited by buffer size). It might still be unlimited in > non-preemtible context. Since I'm worried most about printk(), I would argue to make printk console unlock always non-preempt. preempt_disable(); if (console_trylock_spinning()) console_unlock(); preempt_enable(); -- Steve -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
