[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411070214220.32405@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 02:15:46 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] kernel, add panic_on_warn
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 01:57:36PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> [..]
> > You see that doing
> >
> > if (panic_on_warn) {
> > panic_on_warn = 0;
> > panic(...);
> > }
> >
> > is racy, I hope. If two threads WARN() at the same time, then there's
> > nothing preventing a double panic() because WARN() itself is not
> > serialized against anything. So both the current comment and your
> > suggested revision comment are bogus.
>
> panic() is serialized on panic_lock. So I guess it is fine to hit WARN()
> on multiple cpus. Do you see an issue there?
>
No issue at all, what's completely mysterious is the panic_on_warn = 0 and
the completely bogus comment that says "prevent further WARN()s from
panicking the system" when that's racy. There's no need to clear
panic_on_warn at all.
--
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