> > I wonder whether it is good idea to enable interrupts here? What > if we came here from an interrupt handler with interrupts already > disabled? > > I guess you did this because smp_call_function() needs to have > interrupts enabled, right? > Yup, that's why I did it. > As we still need to make sure that all the secondary CPUs are > stopped, should we do just something like: > > ? ? ? ?smp_send_stop(); > > and then in ipi_cpu_stop() we check whether oops_in_progress is set > and save the cpu state before entering that never-ending loop? But we still need to wait for it to complete, right? Will smp_send_stop() handle the requirements of the underlying ipi regardless of the initial state? Regards, Per
