On 14/11/14 02:16, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:41:32 +0000 > Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 06/11/14 13:27, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:41:54 +0000 >>> Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This patchset makes it possible to use kdb's ftdump command without >>>> panicing, crashing or livelocking. The ftdump command cannot be used >>>> at all without these changes. >>>> >>>> IIRC this patches are still pending Jason's ack. >>> >>> I haven't heard from Jason in a long time. Is he still active? >> >> [sorry for the delay, I wanted to give Jason a chance to answer this] >> >> Very occasionally. >> >> I can't find anything on lkml in the last three months, and I have >> unreviewed kdb patches that stretch back well beyond that. >> >> That said he still helps people on kgdb-bugreport@ from time-to-time >> (and as recently as last week). I've also had a little bit of private >> contact although nothing very recent. >> >> On that basis I'd say you shouldn't feel guilty if you have to accept a >> change here without an ack. >> > > He had more than enough time to respond. OK, I'll take it. > > Looking at the first patch, I notice that there's no protection of the > static buffer_iter array. I also noticed that there's no protection of > the static iter itself (which was there before your patch). I take it > that this code is not re-entrant.
No. k(g)db halts all other processors before entering the command dispatch loop and it forces a kernel panic if the debugger is reentered by the same CPU. Daniel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/