[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090802140809.7ec4bb6b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:08:09 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/debug] debug lockups: Improve lockup detection
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:41:50 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:26:57 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > > I think this just broke all non-x86 non-sparc SMP architectures.
> > >
> > > Yeah - it 'broke' them in the sense of them not having a working
> > > trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() implementation to begin with.
> >
> > c'mon. It broke them in the sense that sysrq-l went from "works"
> > to "doesn't work".
>
> You are right (i broke it with my patch) but the thing is, sysrq-l
> almost useless currently: it uses schedule_work() which assumes a
> mostly working system with full irqs and scheduling working fine.
> Now, i dont need sysrq-l on mostly working systems.
>
> So the 'breakage' is of something that was largely useless: and now
> you put the onus of implementing it for _all_ architectures (which i
> dont use) on me?
I never said that.
It's appropriate that those architectures be left with their existing
level of functionality/usefulness, as you're already discussing.
> > It's better to break the build or to emit warnings than to
> > silently and secretly break their stuff.
>
> But that warning will bounce the ball back to me, wont it? My patch
> will be blamed for 'breaking' those architectures, right?
It's a very crude and somewhat rude way of communicating information to
other architecture maintainers.
A better way would be to send them an email explaining the problem and
outlining some solutions, no?
--
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