Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:28:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:28:35 -0500 Received: from roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com ([24.169.102.121]:2065 "EHLO roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:28:26 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:27:45 -0500 From: Chris Mason To: Alexander Viro cc: David , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OOPS] report Message-ID: <681360000.984724065@tiny> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.6b4 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, March 16, 2001 01:03:20 AM -0500 Alexander Viro wrote: >> Ok, I was more talking about the ugliness that is reiserfs_panic (how >> many times do we need a commented out for(;;)?). For panic() calling >> sys_sync, I think there non-filesystem related panics where we do want >> to sync. > > panic doesn't sync if called from interrupt (thanks $DEITY). > It is pointless to sync during boot. > sync from driver panic is not better than one from fs. > > What does it leave? I hadn't checked each panic(), but it seems that > if we ever want syncing upon panic() it's safer to do sys_sync() by > hands before calling panic(). If it is actually ever needed, that is. > > A quick grep -r shows over 700 panic callers (outside reiserfs). Most look like init messages, or things that generally happen during interrupts. But, I think there are too many to assume that nobody could benefit from a sync. Does that mean they _need_ the sync? Probably not. -chris - 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/