Message-ID: <46B82430.7050200@sw.ru>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:50:08 +0400
From: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@sw.ru>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070803)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org>, dev@openvz.org, devel@openvz.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci_get_device call from interrupt in reboot fixups
References: <20070803103924.GA23786@iris.sw.ru> <20070804040806.GF23330@suse.de> <46B6CAC4.3080202@sw.ru> <20070807024910.GB13657@suse.de> <20070807002437.0e7b9ee5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070807004455.b634c5d0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070807074232.GA11682@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070807074232.GA11682@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1964
Lines: 39

Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 12:44:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:24:37 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Andrew, I really don't want to change the PCI core to handle this, as we
>>>> finally fixed a lot of issues with drivers trying to walk these lists
>>>> from interrupt context.  So if you want to just hide the warning message
>>>> as we are shutting down, that's fine with me.  Or just don't do the
>>>> fixups.  But grabbing a reference to the pci device is unsafe in my
>>>> opinion and I do not want to do that.
>>>>
>>> OK, good decision ;)
>>>
>>> One approach would be for some brave soul to pick his way through
>>> the reboot code and ensure that we are correctly and reliably setting
>>> system_state to SYSTEM_RESTART, then test that in __might_sleep().
>>>
>>> But this does suppress somewhat-useful debugging just because of sysrq-B
>>> and I really wouldn't want to utilise the horrid system_state any more that
>>> we are presently doing.  I think on balance that it would be better if we
>>> could do something more targetted, like modify emergency_restart() to test
>>> in_interrupt() and to then apologetically set some well-named global flag
>>> which will shut up __might_sleep().  Pretty foul, but I can't think of
>>> anything better.
>> ok, this might be better.  How about we just stop calling mach_reboot_fixups()
>> at sysrq-B time?
> 
> Fine with me, but what hardware will be messed up because of this?

static struct device_fixup fixups_table[] = {
> > { PCI_VENDOR_ID_CYRIX, PCI_DEVICE_ID_CYRIX_5530_LEGACY,
> > cs5530a_warm_reset },
> > { PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_CS5536_ISA, cs5536_warm_reset },
> > };
-
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/