On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 12:44:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:24:37 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Andrew, I really don't want to change the PCI core to handle this, as we > > > finally fixed a lot of issues with drivers trying to walk these lists > > > from interrupt context. So if you want to just hide the warning message > > > as we are shutting down, that's fine with me. Or just don't do the > > > fixups. But grabbing a reference to the pci device is unsafe in my > > > opinion and I do not want to do that. > > > > > > > OK, good decision ;) > > > > One approach would be for some brave soul to pick his way through > > the reboot code and ensure that we are correctly and reliably setting > > system_state to SYSTEM_RESTART, then test that in __might_sleep(). > > > > But this does suppress somewhat-useful debugging just because of sysrq-B > > and I really wouldn't want to utilise the horrid system_state any more that > > we are presently doing. I think on balance that it would be better if we > > could do something more targetted, like modify emergency_restart() to test > > in_interrupt() and to then apologetically set some well-named global flag > > which will shut up __might_sleep(). Pretty foul, but I can't think of > > anything better. > > ok, this might be better. How about we just stop calling mach_reboot_fixups() > at sysrq-B time?
Fine with me, but what hardware will be messed up because of this? thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/