On 2019-03-14, John Ogness <john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2019-03-14, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That's why we came up with the trylock + immediate bail out design if >> that fails. Plus really only render the oops int whatever is the >> current display buffer, so that we don't have to do any hw >> programming at all. > > I think this is your best option. The real work will be identifying > any/all spin locking that currently exists. For all of those, the code > needs to change to: > > 1. trylock if oops_in_progress, otherwise spinlock On second thought, you shouldn't use oops_in_progress. It would be better if DRM had its own flag to signify that it is currently being used in kmsg_dump context. > 2. if trylock fails, the code must have a sane failure > > The 2nd point will be the difficult one. For example, you may have > functions without a return value taking spinlocks. But now those > functions could fail. John Ogness _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
