* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:26:57 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I think this just broke all non-x86 non-sparc SMP architectures. > > > > Yeah - it 'broke' them in the sense of them not having a working > > trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() implementation to begin with. > > c'mon. It broke them in the sense that sysrq-l went from "works" > to "doesn't work". You are right (i broke it with my patch) but the thing is, sysrq-l almost useless currently: it uses schedule_work() which assumes a mostly working system with full irqs and scheduling working fine. Now, i dont need sysrq-l on mostly working systems. So the 'breakage' is of something that was largely useless: and now you put the onus of implementing it for _all_ architectures (which i dont use) on me? If that's the requirement then i'll have to keep this as a local debug hack and not do an upstream solution - i dont have the resources to do it for all ~10 SMP architectures. sysrq-l has been messed up really and now that messup limits the adoption of the much more useful solution? I didnt make this thing up, i tried to use it on a locked up system and wondered why it emits nothing and why it uses a separate facility instead of an existing trigger-backtraces facility (which the spinlock-debug code uses). > It would take months for the relevant arch maintainers to even > find out about this, after which they're left with dud kernels out > in the field. > > It's better to break the build or to emit warnings than to > silently and secretly break their stuff. But that warning will bounce the ball back to me, wont it? My patch will be blamed for 'breaking' those architectures, right? Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|