On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 02:02:53PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 11:43 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > Is this one going to be be my fault too? > > Looks like it isn't my fault. In ipi_cpu_crash_stop() we don't modify > the online mask. Which is reasonable enough if we want to preserve its > original contents from before the crash, but it does make that > WARN_ON() in machine_kexec() a false positive. > > Btw, why is this a normal IPI and not something... less maskable? > On x86 we use NMI for that... Architecturally, arm64 does not have an NMI. There's been some work to try to get pseudo-NMIs using GICv3 priorities, but that's about the closest we can get today. Thanks, Mark.
