lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state
On Tue,  2 Sep 2008 15:49:22 +0200 (CEST)
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

> --- linux.orig/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ linux/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ extern enum system_states {
> SYSTEM_POWER_OFF,
> SYSTEM_RESTART,
> SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK,
> + SYSTEM_PANIC,
> } system_state;

system_state is such a crock. I wonder what other random code all over
the place is looking at system_state and will get unexpectedly broken
by other "unrelated" changes such as this..


It's not a heck of a lot nicer, but we could do this:

--- a/kernel/panic.c~a
+++ a/kernel/panic.c
@@ -80,7 +80,6 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
vsnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), fmt, args);
va_end(args);
printk(KERN_EMERG "Kernel panic - not syncing: %s\n",buf);
- bust_spinlocks(0);

/*
* If we have crashed and we have a crash kernel loaded let it handle
@@ -97,6 +96,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
*/
smp_send_stop();
#endif
+ bust_spinlocks(0);

atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_notifier_list, 0, buf);

_
then test oops_in_progress down in the IPI code. This has the
advantage of not introducing any additional global states and is a bit
more logical, I think. Need to check whether crash_kexec() would be
affected by the above change.


Bear in mind that the oops-handling code can call panic(), if
panic_on_oops==1. I can't think of any adverse or special consequences
of this, but it needs to be thought about.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-03 21:07    [W:0.443 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site