Re: [PATCH 1/1] Make sure that any oops is flushed to the mtdoopsconsole

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:05:28 +0200
Viktor Rosendahl <Viktor.Rosendahl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:17 -0700, ext Andrew Morton wrote: 
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:16:28 +0300
> > Viktor Rosendahl <viktor.rosendahl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <clip> 
> > >  void __attribute__((weak)) bust_spinlocks(int yes)
> > > @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@ void __attribute__((weak)) bust_spinlocks(int yes)
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_VT
> > >  		unblank_screen();
> > >  #endif
> > > +		console_unblank();
> > >  		if (--oops_in_progress == 0)
> > >  			wake_up_klogd();
> > >  	}
> > 
> > That looks logical.  From my reading we can now remove that
> > unblank_screen(), because the console_unblank() will call
> > vt_console_driver.unblank() for us?
> 
> For some reason, we did not think about it here when the N810 kernel was
> fixed. It looks good to me but if you do it, then there will be a slight
> difference in behavior, since console_unblank() will call
> vt_console_driver.unblank() only if the console_sem can be acquired,
> otherwise it just returns without doing anything.
> 
> Maybe console_unblank() should be changed to not care too much about the
> console_sem if an oops is in progress? 
> 

hm, yeah.  Things get messy if we take an oops with console_sem held.

I'll drop the cleanup patch - I don't have time to think about and test
anything useful like that :(


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/