[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y61/+V47qH/8OVxp@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 12:54:33 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mce: fix missing stack-dumping in mce_panic()
On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 10:19:32AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> So I think it's better to have at least one stack dumps. Also what the commit
> 6e6f0a1f0fa6 ("panic: don't print redundant backtraces on oops") and commit
> 026ee1f66aaa ("panic: fix stack dump print on direct call to panic()") want
> to do is avoiding nested stack-dumping to have the original oops data being
> scrolled away on a 80x50 screen but to have *at least one backtraces*. So
> this patch acts more like a BUGFIX to ensure having at least one backtraces
> in mce_panic().
So which commit broke this?
One of the two above or
004429956b48 ("handle recursive calls to bust_spinlocks()")
or
d896a940ef4f ("x86, mce: remove oops_begin() use in 64bit machine check")
or...?
By looking at their dates, they're pretty much too old so that this can
go to *all* stable kernels.
Hmmm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists