"Nicholas Piggin" <npig...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon Sep 19, 2022 at 11:51 PM AEST, Nathan Lynch wrote: >> > I wonder - would it be worth making the panic path use a separate >> > "emergency" rtas_args buffer as well? If a CPU is actually "stuck" in >> > RTAS at panic time, then leaving rtas.args untouched might make the >> > ibm,int-off, ibm,set-xive, ibm,os-term, and any other RTAS calls we >> > incur on the panic path more likely to succeed. > > Yeah I think that's probably not a bad idea. Not sure if you've got the > bandwidth to take on doing the patch but be my guest if you do :) > Otherwise we can file it in github issues.
Not sure I'll be able to work it soon. I filed https://github.com/linuxppc/issues/issues/435
