On (12/10/18 16:57), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > (masked out) and on panic_cpu disables only SDEI (interrupts from
> > > firmware,
> > > if I got it right); so it seems that arm64 can handle IRQs after panic.
> > > And
> > > if there are platforms that handle IRQ (including sysrq) after panic, then
> > > both options - making printk a noop or keeping local irqs off - maybe can
> > > cause some problems. Or maybe not. We better ask arch people.
> >
> > Yes, this is very valid concern. And after Petr and you raised it, I did
> > some experiments with 3 x86 platforms at my hand, one Apollolake IOT device
> > with serial console, one IvyBridge laptop and one Kabylake NUC, the magic
> > key
> > all works well before panic, and fails after panic. But I did remember the
> > PageUp/PageDown key worked on some laptop years ago. And you actually
> > raised a
> > good question: what do we expect for the post-panic kernel?
>
> I am not sure why it does not work. But it would be nice if sysrq
> worked.
Absolutely.
[..]
> I still think that calming down printk() is acceptable when
> it can be restored from sysrq.
I would agree; peeking one of the two solutions, printk patch is
probably preferable.
> I think that only few people might be interested into debugging
> post-panic problems. We could print a warning for them about
> that printk() has got disabled.
Dunno. This _maybe_ (speculation!) can upset folks on those platforms
that have sysrq working after panic. printk is a common code.
I'm probably missing a lot of things here, but just in case, I'm not
sure at which point the idea of patching some files under arch/x86
directory was ruled out and why.
-ss
