> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > It might help to read this thread I posted on LKML in January 2006
> > explaining the problem, which led to some discussion about the issue.
> >
> >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/3/48
>
> This is very helpful. Jon Smirl's answer seems to give the
> rationale for supporting printk output in interrupt context.
> I'm not sure, however, if extending the interrupt off period
> to cover the console output is required. It didn't until
> Ingo changed it in 2.6.17.