On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:08:33AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>
> Suppress triggering a nested panic due to soft lockup detection.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>
> diff -Npru /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.16-rc1/kernel/panic.c 2.6.16-rc1-panic-softlockup/kernel/panic.c
> --- /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.16-rc1/kernel/panic.c 2006-01-27 15:10:49.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2.6.16-rc1-panic-softlockup/kernel/panic.c 2006-01-25 09:55:53.000000000 +0100
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
> printk(KERN_EMERG "Rebooting in %d seconds..",panic_timeout);
> for (i = 0; i < panic_timeout*1000; ) {
> touch_nmi_watchdog();
> + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> i += panic_blink(i);
> mdelay(1);
> i++;
> @@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
> #endif
> local_irq_enable();
> for (i = 0;;) {
> + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> i += panic_blink(i);
> mdelay(1);
> i++;
I've been wondering for a while why we don't just make touch_nmi_watchdog
do an implicit call to touch_softlockup_watchdog. I can't think of a situation
where we'd want to do one but not the other, and adding patches like this
seems to be an uphill battle (I know at least two other places that need
this off the top of my head).
Dave
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
