[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84bjseozci.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 10:04:05 +0206
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao.osdev@...il.com>, carlos.bilbao@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, seanjc@...gle.com, jan.glauber@...il.com
Cc: bilbao@...edu, pmladek@...e.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jani.nikula@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, takakura@...inux.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/panic: Add x86_panic_handler as default
post-panic behavior
On 2025-04-29, Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao.osdev@...il.com> wrote:
>> I see no reason why you don't just use safe_halt() as your panic
>> handler.
>
> Yes, in my original implementation I simply used halt, but I was
> trying to be cautious in case any remaining messages hadn't flushed. I
> wonder, can we be certain that, as you said, all output (e.g., a
> backtrace) has already been displayed on screen at this point? I'm not
> sure.
Well, without this series, the kernel goes into an infinite loop. So if
the messages are not all out, they won't magically appear during the
infinite loop either.
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists