Re: [coreboot] locking...

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 20.06.2009 03:04, ron minnich wrote:
> > True, but our console requirements for both versions are pretty minimal
> > and I think we showed in v3 that a one-size-fits-all printk can work fine.
>
> I do not recall that v3 printk was heavily tested with smp. In fact
> it's not smp safe from my reading of the code.
>
> Actually, I can verify that v3 printk works badly on multi-core, since
> I saw the intermixed output during my abortive attempt at getting core
> 2 going on v3. v3 does NOT solve the problem.

True, because it does not use locking. v3 should be easy to convert to
locking which actually works.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel