Various architectures may call bust_spinlocks() recursively (when calling die() in
the context do an unresolved page fault); the function itself, however, doesn't
appear to be meant to be called in this manner. Nevertheless, this doesn't
appear to be a problem as long as bust_spinlocks(0) doesn't get called twice
in a row (otherwise, unblank_screen() may enter the scheduler). However, at
least on i386 die() has been capable of returning (and on other architectures
this should really be that way, too) when notify_die() returns NOTIFY_STOP.
The question now is: Should bust_spinlocks() increment/decrement
oops_in_progress (and kick klogd only when the count drops to zero), or
should we just avoid entering the scheduler by forcibly setting
oops_in_progress to 1 prior to calling unblank_screen(), or should all
architectures currently doing so avoid calling bust_spinlocks() recursively?
Further, many (if not all) architectures seem to have adopted the recursive
die() invocation protection. However, the logic there unconditionally calls
spin_unlock_irqrestore() (besides also allowing for bust_spinlocks() to be
used recursively), instead of undoing just what had been done for the
current function invocation.
Suggestions?
Thanks, Jan
-
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]
