[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <545E1AB1.9030001@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 08:29:21 -0500
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 11/07/2014 04:09 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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:
My original reply pointed out that the comment was wrong.
we want to clear
> panic_on_warn once and not allow multiple panic().
On _this_ thread. The multiple panic across threads cannot occur.
So why not just add
> the necessary synchronization to make sure that happens when WARN()
> happens on two cpus simultaneously?
See above.
P.
>
--
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