RE: [PATCH] Avoid dead lock of console related locks in panic case

[Seiji Aguchi]

Thank you  for giving me the comment.

> - Makes the logic in this area even more twisty and complex, when
>   what we need to do is to simplify it
> 
> - Reinitialises in-use locks
> 
> - Gives the boolean variable "yes" three states, but didn't rename
>   that variable to something appropriate.

I understand "yes" is odd.
I just wanted to know if an idea reinitializing locks is acceptable.
But now I understand I have to take another approach.

> 
> - Passes yes==2 into s390's unsuspecting bust_spinlocks() implementation.
>

Sorry. I missed the code.
 
> 
> Let's step back a bit.  Please identify with great specificity the code sites which are stopping other CPUs before taking locks which
> those other CPUs might have been holding.
> 
> Then let's see what we can do to fix up the callers, instead of trying to tidy up after they have made this mess.

OK.
I will update my patch without adding complexity.
The logic will be as follows, if I understand your comment correctly.

 - take console related locks (logbuf_lock, console_sem)
 - stop other cpus
 - release those locks

Seiji



--
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/