[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100524181735.GC6033@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:17:35 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the kgdb tree
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 08:23 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:09:38AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Jason,
> >>
> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:49:51 -0500 Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com> wrote:
> >>> Before brute force toggling it, it seems we should check the value and
> >>> restore it after the execution of handle_sysrq().
> >> Indeed, at the time I couldn't find an easy way to do that.
> >>
> >>> I'll have to look and see if there is an access function for this.
> >> Great, thanks.
> >
> > I would not mind re-exporting sysrq_on() again.
> >
>
> We could but I don't know that you need to.
>
> Would you be willing to sign off on a change like the one below
> Dmitry? If so then I'll push it into kgdb-next.
>
> It is as simple as making the return from sysrq_toggle_support a bit
> more meaningful.
>
I do not think it is a very good idea... What if some other process
enales SysRq in the mean time. Do we really need to force SysRq on
or off? Maybe we should export __handle_sysrq() instead?
Also, I think I need to add locking in sysrq_toggle_support(), which
will make it unsuitable for using in kdb handler, won't it?
--
Dmitry
--
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