On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:18:41PM +0200, Alexander van Heukelum wrote: > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:45:05 -0400, "Neil Horman" > <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> said: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 05:08:34PM +0200, Alexander van Heukelum wrote: > > > Mostly use the x86_64 version of oops_begin() and oops_end() on > > > i386 too. Changes to the original x86_64 version: > > > > > Hey, doing a sight review this am here. Didn't find anything major, but > > I did > > find a few little nits. comments inlie > > Hi Neil, > > Thanks for the review. I've sent a redone patch series just a moment > ago, based on your comments. There was also another problem with these > two patches: oops_end(flags, regs, signr) had special behaviour for > regs=NULL that I did not consider before. The series has grown due > to this issue... > > >> [...] > > Hmm. I think this creates the same case that I just fixed in my initial > > post. If we start using oops_end with this here, it may be possible to call > > crash_kexec with the console_sem held. If that happens, we deadlock. I > > think you should be able to move this clause up above the bust_spinlocks(0) > > without any issue, and that would take care of that > > Indeed. The new series does exactly that. > > >> [...] > > This undoes my previous patch. I realize your second patch fixes it > > properly so the ordering is correct when oops_begin and oops_end are used, but if you > > could rediff so this isn't here, I'd appreciate it. If these patches are > > committed separately, you'll avoid having the tree in a state where that deadlock > > can reoccur (even if it is just for one commit) > > Yeah, I quickly rediffed the patches I already had. The new series > leaves > it as is until die_nmi is replaced by the oops_begin/oops_end version. > > >> [...] > > If you're going to add the crash_kexec here (which looking at the call > > sites, makes sense to me), you should likely remove it from the critical section > > of die and die_nmi, just to avoid the redundancy. Same issue as the 32 bit > > version above applies, this needs to happen before you call bust_spinlocks(0). > > Indeed. > > > Fix those issues, and the rest looks good to me. > > I think I've done that ;). > > Thanks, > Greetings, > Alexander > > (I will probably not be able to respond to e-mail until after the > weekend) Copy that. Thanks for the quick turn-around. Best Neil > -- > Alexander van Heukelum > heukelum at fastmail.fm > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail... > > -- /**************************************************** * Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> * Software Engineer, Red Hat ****************************************************/
