Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for printk_deferred

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:22:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:18:16 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > By not calling console_unlock() the messages will be 'delayed', as in,
> > we'll not call console->write() and we'll not see them, etc..
> > 
> > So some form of [delayed] or whatnot seems to remain appropriate.
> > 
> > I agree that the 'sched_' part has lived far beyond its relevance.
> 
> But then we should add '[delayed]' if a CPU calls printk() while
> another CPU is printing, as printk() wont block in that case either,
> and the output will happen some later time.

You're over thinking this. You cannot (and we don't want to) know if it
indeed got delayed, therefore it got delayed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/