Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270562AbTGSXh7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:37:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270564AbTGSXh7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:37:59 -0400 Received: from blackbird.intercode.com.au ([203.32.101.10]:41994 "EHLO blackbird.intercode.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270562AbTGSXh6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:37:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:52:33 +1000 (EST) From: James Morris To: Jim Keniston cc: Andrew Morton , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/2] kernel error reporting (revised) In-Reply-To: <3F1882CF.538FE76@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 888 Lines: 25 On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jim Keniston wrote: > > Yes, this makes sense. At the kerror.c level, just return -EDEADLK if in_irq(). > > Delay packet delivery (via a tasklet, as before) at the evlog.c level instead. > > That way, we know at the evlog.c level (in the tasklet) whether the event packet > > was delivered to anybody, and can paraphrase it to printk if it wasn't. > > > > Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? Not exactly -- I don't think the logging framework should do any irq detection. The caller should either know if its in an interrupt, or do the detection itself. - James -- James Morris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/