http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13130
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> 2009-04-21 02:05:37 --- well... _why_ do we want it to work? It's only a debug thing and shouldn't be needed at all once the driver is finished? And if there _is_ a legitimate long-term need for it then it surely should not be implemented way down inside one specific driver? I'm surprised that anyone even found out that sysrq-g exists - I didn't know, and the chances are good that we'll later steal `g' from you and we won't find out for weeks :( Yes, a schedule_work() thing will probably be OK, although there's a new class of deadlock around that, so some care will be needed. This'll be our fourth sysrq-uses-schedule_work instance (at least). I guess we should add a sysrq_key_op.call_in_process_context and centralise the implementation.. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
