[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87619qzo5d.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:27:10 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Hatayama, Daisuke/畑山 大輔
<d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel/panic/kexec: fix "crash_kexec_post_notifiers" option issue in oops path
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> writes:
> * Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > f06e5153f4ae ("kernel/panic.c: add "crash_kexec_post_notifiers" option for kdump after panic_notifers")
>> >
>> > Was that crash_kexec() was called unconditionally after notifiers were
>> > called, which should be fixed via the simple patch below (untested).
>> > Looks much simpler than your fix.
>>
>> No, Daisuke's patch is not for that case. [...]
>
> Yet the actual bug is in that commit, 'crash_kexec_post_notifiers' was
> clearly not a no-op in the default case, against expectations.
>
> So the first step should be to restore the original behavior (my
> patch), then should any new tweaks be added.
Honestly I think the proper fix is to simply revert f06e5153f4ae.
It was clearly not properly tested by the people who wanted it because
they came back quite a while later with additional bleh.
I think this pretty much counts as hitting the code doesn't work let's
remove it threshold.
Eric
--
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