[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1363058712.4534.12.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:25:12 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
hongfeng <hongfeng@...vell.com>, david@...son.dropbear.id.au
Subject: Regression with orderly_poweroff()
Hi Linus !
A couple of weeks ago, David sent an email that went unanswered about a
regression concerning orderly_poweroff(). I think the original patch
causing it should be reverted, here's the actual email with the
explanation:
<<<
Subject: orderly_poweroff() is no longer safe in atomic context
Commit 6c0c0d4d1080840eabb3d055d2fd81911111c5fd "poweroff: fix bug in
orderly_poweroff()" apparently fixes one bug in orderly_poweroff(),
but introduces another. The comments on orderly_poweroff() claim it
can be called from any context - and indeed we call it from interrupt
context in arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c for example. But
since that commit this is no longer safe, since
call_usermodehelper_fns() is not safe in interrupt context without the
UMH_NO_WAIT option.
I'm having trouble understanding the commit message to see what the
original bug being fixed was. Specifically I can't make sense of:
| The bug here is, step 1 is always successful with param
| UMH_NO_WAIT, which obey the design goal of orderly_poweroff.
And without understanding the original bug, I'm not sure what the
correct fix is.
>>>
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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