[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220713103933.e7510daa1c1f6ccde32f4d42@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:39:33 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] kexec, panic: Making crash_kexec() NMI safe
On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 12:13:03 +0100 Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/22 10:47, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 06/30/22 at 11:32pm, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> Here's ~v3~ v4 where we now completely get rid of kexec_mutex.
> >>
> >> o Patch 1 makes sure all kexec_mutex acquisitions are trylocks. This prevents
> >> having to add any while(atomic_cmpxchg()) loops which I'd really hate to see
> >> here. If that can't be done then I think we're better off with the combined
> >> mutex+atomic var approach.
> >> o Patch 2 does the mutex -> atomic var switch.
> >
> > This series looks good, has it been taken into any tree?
> >
>
> I don't think so, briefly poked around git and haven't seen it anywhere.
I'll stash it away for consideration after -rc1.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists