[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F19D43812@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:09:36 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
CC: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] pstore: avoid recursive spinlocks in the
oops_in_progress case
> Mm... why break?
We don't know what the back-end driver will do if we allow another call
while a previous one is still in progress. It might end up corrupting the
backing non-volatile storage and losing some previously saved records.
Existing drivers (ERST and EFI) are dependent on f/w ... so things might
work on some platforms, yet be horribly bad on others.
The patch as it was written converts a deadlock (hang) case into a "lose
this log, but keep going" case. Which seems to be an improvement without
taking any risks about what the backend will do.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists