On Wed 2008-01-23 12:25:09, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
quoted text
> * Daniel Walker (dwalker@mvista.com) wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:02 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > > +	if (!irqs_disabled() && wake_klogd)
> > >  		wake_up_klogd();
> > 
> > This causes a regression .. When printk is called during an OOPS in
> > kernels without this change then the OOPS will get logged, since the
> > logging process (klogd) is woken to handle the messages.. If you apply
> > this change klogd doesn't wakeup, and hence doesn't log the oops.. So if
> > you remove the wakeup here you have to add it someplace else to maintain
> > the logging ..
> > 
> > (I'm not theorizing here, I have defects logged against this specific
> > piece of code..)
> > 
> 
> Can we change this for :
> if (!(irqs_disabled() && !oops_in_progress) && wake_klogd)
>   wake_up_klogd();
> 
> ?

That's wrong, too.

Just make wake_up_klogd do trylock, if it finds that it can't get
neccessary locks, printk(KERN_ALERT) so at least console gets the
message, but proceed without the lock.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/