On 11/07/2014 04:09 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> There very much is. Consider a thread that hits a WARN() and then panics. Then >> somewhere in the panic code the thread hits another WARN() ... and then panics >> again. Previously this would have caused the system to "finish" panick'ing. >> Now it makes the system hang. >> > > Then we're back to square one which is what is obviously the intent of > your patch and the comment that goes along with it: My original reply pointed out that the comment was wrong. we want to clear > panic_on_warn once and not allow multiple panic(). On _this_ thread. The multiple panic across threads cannot occur. So why not just add > the necessary synchronization to make sure that happens when WARN() > happens on two cpus simultaneously? See above. P. >
