[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160318100306.GB19401@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:03:06 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
kbuild-all@...org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
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,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>,
linux-am33-list@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] printk/nmi: Generic solution for safe printk in
NMI
On Thu 2016-03-17 12:35:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:57:44 +0100 Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed 2015-12-02 00:24:49, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > >
> > > > MN10300 has its own implementation for entering and exiting NMI
> > > > handlers. It does not call nmi_enter() and nmi_exit(). Please, find
> > > > below an updated patch that adds printk_nmi_enter() and
> > > > printk_nmi_exit() to the custom entry points. Then we could add HAVE_NMI
> > > > to arch/mn10300/Kconfig and avoid the above warning.
> > >
> > > Hmm, so what exactly would go wrong if MN10300 (whatever that architecture
> > > is) would call nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() at the places where it's
> > > starting and finishing NMI handler?
> > >
> > > >From a cursory look, it seems like most (if not all) of the things called
> > > from nmi_{enter,exit}() would be nops there anyway.
> >
> > Good point. Max mentioned in the other main that the NMI handler
> > should follow the NMI ruler. I do not why it could not work.
> > In fact, it might improve things, e.g. nmi_enter() blocks
> > recursive NMIs.
> >
> > I think that it will move it into a separate patch, thought.
> >
>
> I've sort of lost the plot on this patchset.
>
> I know Daniel had concerns (resolved?). Sergey lost the ability to
> perform backtraces and has a proposed fix ("printk/nmi: restore
> printk_func in nmi_panic") but that wasn't fully resolved and I didn't
> merge anything. I'm not sure what Jan's thinking is on it all.
>
> So... I'll retain
>
> printk-nmi-generic-solution-for-safe-printk-in-nmi.patch
> printk-nmi-use-irq-work-only-when-ready.patch
> printk-nmi-warn-when-some-message-has-been-lost-in-nmi-context.patch
> printk-nmi-increase-the-size-of-nmi-buffer-and-make-it-configurable.patch
>
> in -mm for now. Perhaps I should drop them all and we start again
> after -rc1?
Please, drop it for now. I'll send an updated version that will better
handle Daniel's concerns after rc1.
I thought that it had already been decided. You wanted to remove the patchset
in favour of "improvements to the nmi_backtrace code" by Chris Metcalf, see
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/482845/focus=483002
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists