On (10/25/18 10:11), Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > s390 is the only architecture that is using own bust_spinlocks()
> > variant, while other arch-s seem to be OK with the common
> > implementation.
> >
> > Heiko Carstens [1] said he would prefer s390 to use the common
> > bust_spinlocks() as well:
>
On (10/25/18 10:11), Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > s390 is the only architecture that is using own bust_spinlocks()
> > variant, while other arch-s seem to be OK with the common
> > implementation.
> >
> > Heiko Carstens [1] said he would prefer s390 to use the common
> > bust_spinlocks() as well:
>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 04:05:43PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/25/18 08:28), Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >
> > With your patch this looks nearly like the common code variant. I did
> > some code archaeology and this function is unchanged since ~17 years.
> > When it was introduced it
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 04:05:43PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/25/18 08:28), Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >
> > With your patch this looks nearly like the common code variant. I did
> > some code archaeology and this function is unchanged since ~17 years.
> > When it was introduced it
On (10/25/18 08:28), Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> With your patch this looks nearly like the common code variant. I did
> some code archaeology and this function is unchanged since ~17 years.
> When it was introduced it was close to identical to the x86 variant.
> All other architectures use the
On (10/25/18 08:28), Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> With your patch this looks nearly like the common code variant. I did
> some code archaeology and this function is unchanged since ~17 years.
> When it was introduced it was close to identical to the x86 variant.
> All other architectures use the
On (10/25/18 08:28), Heiko Carstens wrote:
[..]
> > int loglevel_save = console_loglevel;
> > - console_unblank();
> > - oops_in_progress = 0;
> > - /*
> > -* OK, the message is on the console. Now we call printk()
> > -* without
On (10/25/18 08:28), Heiko Carstens wrote:
[..]
> > int loglevel_save = console_loglevel;
> > - console_unblank();
> > - oops_in_progress = 0;
> > - /*
> > -* OK, the message is on the console. Now we call printk()
> > -* without
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:34:25PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/24/18 13:30), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> From: Sergey Senozhatsky
> Subject: [PATCH] s390/fault: use wake_up_klogd() in bust_spinlocks()
...
> From the comment it seems that s390 wants to jus
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:34:25PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/24/18 13:30), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> From: Sergey Senozhatsky
> Subject: [PATCH] s390/fault: use wake_up_klogd() in bust_spinlocks()
...
> From the comment it seems that s390 wants to jus
Sorry about that.
====
From: Sergey Senozhatsky
Subject: [PATCH] s390/fault: use wake_up_klogd() in bust_spinlocks()
printk() without oops_in_progress set is potentially dangerous.
it will attempt to call into console driver, so if oops happened
while console driver port->lock spin_lock was
Sorry about that.
====
From: Sergey Senozhatsky
Subject: [PATCH] s390/fault: use wake_up_klogd() in bust_spinlocks()
printk() without oops_in_progress set is potentially dangerous.
it will attempt to call into console driver, so if oops happened
while console driver port->lock spin_lock was
printk() without oops_in_progress set is potentially dangerous.
it will attempt to call into console driver, so if oops happened
while console driver port->lock spin_lock was locked on the same
CPU (NMI oops or oops from console driver), then re-entering
console driver from bust_spinlocks() will
printk() without oops_in_progress set is potentially dangerous.
it will attempt to call into console driver, so if oops happened
while console driver port->lock spin_lock was locked on the same
CPU (NMI oops or oops from console driver), then re-entering
console driver from bust_spinlocks() will
14 matches
Mail list logo
