Various architectures may call bust_spinlocks() recursively (when calling die() in the context do an unresolved page fault); the function itself, however, doesn't appear to be meant to be called in this manner. Nevertheless, this doesn't appear to be a problem as long as bust_spinlocks(0) doesn't get called twice in a row (otherwise, unblank_screen() may enter the scheduler). However, at least on i386 die() has been capable of returning (and on other architectures this should really be that way, too) when notify_die() returns NOTIFY_STOP.
The question now is: Should bust_spinlocks() increment/decrement oops_in_progress (and kick klogd only when the count drops to zero), or should we just avoid entering the scheduler by forcibly setting oops_in_progress to 1 prior to calling unblank_screen(), or should all architectures currently doing so avoid calling bust_spinlocks() recursively? Further, many (if not all) architectures seem to have adopted the recursive die() invocation protection. However, the logic there unconditionally calls spin_unlock_irqrestore() (besides also allowing for bust_spinlocks() to be used recursively), instead of undoing just what had been done for the current function invocation. Suggestions? Thanks, Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
