Sean MacLennan wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:28:36 -0700 > "Mike Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch changes the EEH_MAX_FAILS action from panic to printing an > > error message. Panicking under under this condition is too harsh. > > Although performance will be affected and the device may not recover, > > the system is still running, which at the very least, should allow > > for a more graceful shutdown. The panic() is now wrapped in a DEBUG > > statement for development purposes. The patch also removes the > > msleep() within a spinlock, which is not allowed. > > Why can you not msleep within a spinlock? And when was this change > brought in?
Giving up the cpu while holding a spinlock risks locking up the system in the worst case -- if another task tries to acquire the held lock it can spin indefinitely. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
