[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F138E222-D587-4264-8B80-E041D44BF770@antoniou-consulting.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:55:56 +0300
From: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russ.Dill@...com, mporter@...com,
stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Unconditional call to smp_cross_call on UP crashes
Hi Russell,
On May 24, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 07:50:24PM +0000, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> omap2plus_defconfig builds with SMP & SMP_ON_UP set.
>> On beagle (which is UP) is_smp() returns false and we don't call
>> smp_init_cpus which in turn does not initialize smp_cross_call which
>> remains NULL.
>>
>> When issuing a reboot we OOPS with a NULL dereference on stop smp_call.
>
> I've been wondering whether we should make smp_cross_call() a no-op instead
> by default, rather than a NULL pointer.
>
> Alternatively, if may be well worth changing this to do:
>
> if (!cpumask_empty(&mask))
> smp_cross_call(&mask, IPI_CPU_STOP);
>
> instead, so we avoid calling smp_cross_call() when we're on a SMP system
> with only one CPU online. I like this approach better because it removes
> a potential call into platform code which is inappropriate.
Both of these can work, and in fact have been tried.
I am partial on both to be honest. Have a default no-op function for smp_cross_call()
and guard with cpumask_empty().
Which do you want me to make a patch for?
Regards
-- Pantelis
--
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