[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151201234437.GA8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:44:37 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-cris-kernel@...s.com, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] printk/nmi: Try hard to print Oops message in NMI
context
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:09:30PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> What we can do, though, is to zap all printk locks. We already do this
> when a printk recursion is detected. This should be safe because
> the system is crashing and there shouldn't be any printk caller
> that would cause the deadlock.
What about serial consoles which may call out to subsystems like the
clk subsystem to enable a clock, which would want to take their own
spinlocks in addition to the serial console driver?
I don't see bust_spinlocks() dealing with any of these locks, so IMHO
trying to make this work in NMI context strikes me as making the
existing solution more unreliable on ARM systems.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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