On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > > Why bother ? It looks like a leftover debugging message which
> > > doesn't make a lot of sense once the code is stable (what might make
> > > sense is checking keventd is still around, but that's not what the
> > > code is doing).
>
> keventd *must* still be around.
So put in the reliable check for it:
in start_context_thread:
while (!keventd_task)
schedule();
in need_keventd:
for_each_task(tsk) {
if (tsk == keventd_task) {
if (tsk->mm == NULL && strcmp(tsk->comm, "keventd") == 0)
return 1;
}
}
printk("eek.");
return 0;
> And the code obviously isn't completely stable, and this debug
> message has found something rather unpleasant.
So removing the debug code completely (which is what your patch does)
doesn't sound like the right thing.
> I don't think we should run the init tasks when keventd may, or
> may not be running. Sure, the current code does, by happenstance,
> all work correctly when keventd hasn't yet started running, and
> when it's starting up. But it's safer, saner and surer just
> to crank the damn thing up before proceeding.
Agreed. The code snippet above should do that, no ?
> I believe the right thing to do here is the RMK approach.
That still won't catch keventd oopsing though - which I think might happen
quite easily in real life.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
