[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1362516424.18799.81.camel@thor.lan>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:47:04 -0500
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: jslaby@...e.cz, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING at tty_buffer.c:428 process_one_work()
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:03 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:44:49 +0100
>
> > Hi, I must admit I don't understand. I now checked both of them and they
> > call uart_handle_sysrq_char unconditionally, or?
>
> Nope, in the sunsab.c receive function, we used to handle the SYSRQ
> stuff before break checking when TTY is NULL, now we don't.
Hi David,
SysRq is signalled first by a BRK condition, then followed by the input
character indicating which SysRq function to perform.
sunsab.c: receive_char() is behaving as you would expect.
First, a BRK status is indicated so uart_handle_break() records a
timestamp. If the next input is received within 5 sec. of that
timestamp, the character received is interpreted as a SysRq function --
handled by uart_handle_sysrq_char().
Are you observing that SysRq processing is not occurring with this
driver when only a console exists, or are you hypothesizing that this is
possible?
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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