[coreboot] locking...

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sat Jun 20 03:18:17 CEST 2009

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.



More information about the coreboot mailing list