On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 04:16 +0000, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote: > So Mike, is this reason strong enough for you ?
Nope. I think you did the right thing in removing your dependency on jiffies reliability in a dying box. You don't have to convince me of anything though, CC timer subsystem maintainer, see what he says. > I understand your point: solve the BUG, and I do tend to agree with you. > > But by design and implementation, the BUG() is just a beginning of the end > for dying kernel. > And what happens in between this 'the beginning' and 'the end' is not less > important. > (because say, on our platform we want to get clean RAMDUMP to analyze what > happened, and for that we want to get clean reboot) I don't see anybody else having any trouble getting crash dumps. I spent yet another long day just yesterday, rummaging through one. > Also, > If somebody's design is to legally Crash the kernel (e.g. where kernel is > actually not faulty). > Then, I do expect that tick/timekeeping framework do its job as long as it > can do, and it should do, because kernel is not faulty. > But in this case it doesn’t handover jiffies incrementing job sanely. It seems odd to me to use BUG() for what you appear to be using it for.. not that I know exactly what that it mind you, but when you said when some other gizmo in your box has a problem you crash the kernel, my head tilted to the side - surely there's a more controlled response possible than poking the big red self destruct button ;-) -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/