On (06/28/18 11:41), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > A side note: This nesting also handles recursive printk-s for us. > > > > NMI: > > printk_nmi_enter > > ftrace_dump > > printk_nmi_direct_enter > > vprintk_func > > spin_lock(logbuf_lock) > > vprintk_store > > vsprintf > > WARN_ON > > vprintk_func > > vprintk_nmi > > Uff, it seems that the current design is "good" at lest from some > points of view. yep yep > > > + len = vprintk_store(0, LOGLEVEL_DEFAULT, NULL, 0, fmt, args); > > > + raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); > > > + defer_console(); > > > + return len; > > > + } > > > > So, maybe, something a bit better than defer_console(). > > I am not super happy with the name either. But wakeup_console(), > schedule_console(), or queue_console() looked confusing. Hmm. defer_console() makes me think that we are dealing with that fbcon=nodefer and deferred console takeover thing here. So I summon Mr. Rostedt! Does schedule_console_output() look bad? What about defer_console_output()? Any other ideas? -ss
