[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20710271110s4c8c2654qc11ecf2054eb0492@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:10:29 -0700
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
Cc: "Shannon Nelson" <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>, kernel@...32linux.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DMA: Correct invalid assumptions in the Kconfig text
On 10/27/07, Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's a pretty serious bug if the DMA engine flags an error. But
> wouldn't it be better to BUG() in the context of the caller? That way,
> you won't necessarily bring down the whole system.
>
I see your point... We could track the caller's task_struct in
dma_async_tx_descriptor, and deliver a SIGBUS in the case of an error.
It limits the client's recovery options, but at least the damaged is
localized to the correct process. I need to go read up on what this
would imply for kernel threads like raid5d...
-
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