Hi Don, Thank you for your feedback!
2012/3/27 Don Zickus <[email protected]>: > > Hmm, if try_panic fails, then the cpu continues on executing code. This > might further corrupt an already broken system. So I don't think this > patch will work as is. > I see what you are saying. I could make the argument that this kind of system corruption could occur anyway even if you did panic inside an IRQ context instead, but I would tend to agree that your proposed solution is much better than adding another panic interface. > Perhaps instead of panic'ing in the NMI context, we use irq_work and panic > in an interrupt context instead. We still get the system to stop (though > it might still execute some interrupts) and it will be out of the NMI > context. > > However, you will still run into a similar problem when in the > panic/reboot case we shutdown all the remote cpus and have them sitting in > a similar cpu_relax loop in the NMI context, while the panic'ing cpu > cleans things up. > Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? How does this affect KDB usage? A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
