[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D5301EE911C66@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:56:50 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"hughd@...omium.org" <hughd@...omium.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"namhyung@...il.com" <namhyung@...il.com>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH -next] make pstore/kmsg_dump run after stopping
other cpus in panic path
> All this lock busting probably isn't pretty and causes one to reflect what
> is going on here. But as long as we are going to keep the kmsg_dump
> design, changes like this seem necessary to make sure the locking stays
> sane(r) for now.
So should we let the back-end know that locks have been busted? I worry
that we'll get through the pstore layer by blasting away at any locks that
get in our way - but then the backend (which may well have been written on
the assumption that pstore serialized calls to it) will not do anything
useful (and may cause its own hang).
-Tony
--
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