On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:15:57 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
> archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WORKER's have been created and
> the task does something th
Le 28/03/2023 à 13:47, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> "Nicholas Piggin" writes:
>> On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:26 PM AEST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Now that thread.regs doesn't change anymore at each interrupt, it would
>>> probably be worth dropping it and falling back to task_pt_regs()
On 3/28/23 5:32?AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Jens Axboe writes:
>> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
>> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
>> archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WORKER's have been created and
>> the task d
"Nicholas Piggin" writes:
> On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:26 PM AEST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
...
>>
>> Now that thread.regs doesn't change anymore at each interrupt, it would
>> probably be worth dropping it and falling back to task_pt_regs() as
>> defined on most architecture.
>> Knowing whether a
Jens Axboe writes:
> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
> archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WORKER's have been created and
> the task does something that causes a coredump to be generat
On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:26 PM AEST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 27/03/2023 à 08:36, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> > On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:15 AM AEST, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
> >> from my (arguably very short) checking is n
On 3/27/23 7:54?AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Nicholas Piggin" writes:
>> On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:15 AM AEST, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
>>> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
>>> archs. This is
"Nicholas Piggin" writes:
> On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:15 AM AEST, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
>> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
>> archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WORKER's have been created
On 3/27/23 12:36?AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:15 AM AEST, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
>> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
>> archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WORKER's
Le 27/03/2023 à 08:36, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:15 AM AEST, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
>> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
>> archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WO
On Mon Mar 27, 2023 at 8:15 AM AEST, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
> from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
> archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WORKER's have been created and
> the task does something t
Powerpc sets up PF_KTHREAD and PF_IO_WORKER with a NULL pt_regs, which
from my (arguably very short) checking is not commonly done for other
archs. This is fine, except when PF_IO_WORKER's have been created and
the task does something that causes a coredump to be generated. Then we
get this crash:
12 matches
Mail list logo
