Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andi Kleen
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 12:44 pm

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:32:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

You mean " This has the
advantage of not introducing any additional global states and is a bit
more logical, I think." ?

Seems dodgy to me but ok. Also I think personally SYSTEM_PANIC 
is more logical than making oops_in_progress stand for panic too.

Anyways it's moot because it looks like smp_call_function is not
easily salavagable for panic anyways.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] [0/2] Fix panic regression in 2.6.27, Andi Kleen, (Tue Sep 2, 6:49 am)
[PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state, Andi Kleen, (Tue Sep 2, 6:49 am)
Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state, Andrew Morton, (Wed Sep 3, 12:04 pm)
Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 3, 12:16 pm)
Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state, Andrew Morton, (Wed Sep 3, 12:32 pm)
Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 3, 12:44 pm)