[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17919.42767.233797.860230@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:19:11 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: jesse.barnes@...el.com, zaitcev@...hat.com, jg@...top.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BSOD
David Miller writes:
> Mode setting is complex and it is not going to work exactly when you
> need the kernel crash message the most.
It's a matter of writing maybe a dozen MMIO registers on the ATI
chips, for instance, with some delays. Provided we have interrupts
disabled and udelay still works, there's not a lot of the kernel that
we need to rely on to do that.
> After debugging the kernel for 10+ years I can tell you one thing, for
> a bad crash what's going to happen is you'll get the printk but that's
> about all that will work at that point, and the kernel is going to
> hang next. Sometimes you won't get the whole panic message, just
> the beginning, even with the most simplistic printk implementation.
>
> You will not, I repeat, will not be able to mode switch or anything
> non-trivial like that when the kernel is in this state.
>
> Mode switching on panic, just say no. :-)
Anything is better than nothing. At the moment we get nothing if you
are in X when the panic occurs, even for the nicest, most well-behaved
panics. :) If we can change that to getting something sometimes,
that's a win.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists