On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > I'm personally happy with the existing code, and I've been wondering why > there's this effort to apply further cleanups - to me, the changelogs > don't seem to make that much sense, unless we want to start using > printk() extensively in NMI functions - using the generic nmi backtrace > code surely gets us something that works across all architectures... It is already being used extensively, and not only for all-CPU backtraces. For starters, please consider - WARN_ON(in_nmi()) - BUG_ON(in_nmi()) - anything being printed out from MCE handlers -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
