[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190924142438.fjicbolo2xmgn4t7@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:24:38 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
SergeySenozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LinusTorvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
PraritBhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: printk meeting at LPC
On Wed 2019-09-18 12:48:01, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:41:55 +0200
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> > Regarding SysRq. I could imagine introducing another SysRq that
> > would just call panic(). I mean that it would try to flush the
> > logs and reboot in the most safe way.
>
> You mean sysrq-c ?
Sysrq-c is confusing because the NULL pointer dereference is reported.
I meant a completely new sysrq that would just call panic() without
an artificial noise.
Hmm, sysrq is already using most of the keys. sysrq-c might be good enough
after all.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists