Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267549AbUJWECc (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:02:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269200AbUJWEBh (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:01:37 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:17118 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S267549AbUJWD5L (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:57:11 -0400 Subject: Re: printk() with a spin-lock held. From: Lee Revell To: root@chaos.analogic.com Cc: Linux kernel In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:56:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1098503815.13176.2.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 615 Lines: 20 On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 15:07 -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > Linux-2.6.9 will bug-check and halt if my code executes > a printk() with a spin-lock held. > > Is this the intended behavior? Yes. printk() can sleep. No sleeping with a spinlock held. > If so, NotGood(tm). See above. If you think you can improve the situation, patches are welcome, as always. Lee - 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/