[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0910121044331.3438@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
cc: Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@...insight.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Koskinen Aaro (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <aaro.koskinen@...ia.com>,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] panic.c: export panic_on_oops
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Once you do the final flush in a controlled place _after_ you've printed
> out all the oops information, you simply don't care about locks any more.
> Because if you were holding critical locks, you're done anyway.
>
> Sure, maybe you want to do a "trylock()" and skip the oops flush entirely
> in the mtd layer if you can't do it, but it's the "let's use a workqueue"
> or something that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
Side note: I don't actually care deeply. Once it's all inside some driver,
and once it's not messing up the console layer, I don't think the small
details matter all that much. I just think it's likely to be a sign of
something wrong if you need to use workqueues to flush - it probably means
that the most interesting oopses will never make it to the mtd device in
the first place.
Linus
--
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