On Fri 29-05-15 13:50:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:46:23 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > The main source of deadlocks caused by printk() in NMI context has been
> > solved by the commit a9edc88093287 ("x86/nmi: Perform a safe NMI stack
> > trace on all CPUs").
> >
> > But there are still few warnings printed in the NMI code that could
> > case a deadlock. For example, see the freeze discussed at
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/20/481
>
> I'm not (yet) convinced that we want the entire patchset btw. Do we
> really want to try to semi-support printk from NMI? With a rather
> nasty set of hacks?
>
> Why not just delete the offending printks?
And what about WARN_ONs and BUG_ONs? Delete as well? Or just don't print
anything when we are in NMI? I agree that NMI is so problematic context
that restricting printk there makes some sence. OTOH propagating
information from NMI to user is useful as well so I'm somewhat undecided.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
