>well, if you read Chuck's suggestion:
>
>[...]
>> besides, making the IRQ-masked spinlocks interruptible might mean that
>> we're more likely to interrupt a deadlock via SysRq, right?
YES: making the IRQ-masked spinlocks interruptible we are more likely to
interrupt a deadlock via SysRQ _even_ with the NMI applyed.
If my above sentence is wrong please explain me why.
I sure agree that it's not a good thing w.r.t. debugging to avoid
triggering the NMI oops as we won't get the whole stack trace from the
user with the SYSRQ+P way.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/