On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: > On 05/20/2010 08:23 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:09:38AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Jason, > >> > >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:49:51 -0500 Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Before brute force toggling it, it seems we should check the value and > >>> restore it after the execution of handle_sysrq(). > >> Indeed, at the time I couldn't find an easy way to do that. > >> > >>> I'll have to look and see if there is an access function for this. > >> Great, thanks. > > > > I would not mind re-exporting sysrq_on() again. > > > > We could but I don't know that you need to. > > Would you be willing to sign off on a change like the one below > Dmitry? If so then I'll push it into kgdb-next. > > It is as simple as making the return from sysrq_toggle_support a bit > more meaningful. > I do not think it is a very good idea... What if some other process enales SysRq in the mean time. Do we really need to force SysRq on or off? Maybe we should export __handle_sysrq() instead? Also, I think I need to add locking in sysrq_toggle_support(), which will make it unsuitable for using in kdb handler, won't it? -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
