[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd01a908addbb9050bbbe1cff81401f3bb7ed841.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:46:58 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Enrico Weigelt <info@...ux.net>,
Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
peterz@...radead.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] ppc/crash: Reset spinlocks during crash
On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:28 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
> TBH I think we could just drop that printk() entirely.
>
> Or we could tell printk() that we're in NMI context so that it uses the
> percpu buffers.
>
> We should probably do the latter anyway, in case there's any other code
> we call that inadvertently calls printk().
Done:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1266956/
About the rtas-call, I think it will take more time, because I have to
study it properly.
Thank you,
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists