[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411071306370.12192@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:09:40 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...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 Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> There very much is. Consider a thread that hits a WARN() and then panics. Then
> somewhere in the panic code the thread hits another WARN() ... and then panics
> again. Previously this would have caused the system to "finish" panick'ing.
> Now it makes the system hang.
>
Then we're back to square one which is what is obviously the intent of
your patch and the comment that goes along with it: we want to clear
panic_on_warn once and not allow multiple panic(). So why not just add
the necessary synchronization to make sure that happens when WARN()
happens on two cpus simultaneously?
--
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