From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752956AbZHCIAH (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 04:00:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752728AbZHCIAG (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 04:00:06 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51092 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567AbZHCIAE (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 04:00:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:59:43 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:core/debug] debug lockups: Improve lockup detection Message-ID: <20090803075943.GA32258@elte.hu> References: <20090802114545.f1520c81.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090802192657.GA21882@elte.hu> <20090802123958.cbd497a0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090802204150.GB3986@elte.hu> <20090802140809.7ec4bb6b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090802140809.7ec4bb6b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:41:50 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:26:57 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > I think this just broke all non-x86 non-sparc SMP architectures. > > > > > > > > Yeah - it 'broke' them in the sense of them not having a working > > > > trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() implementation to begin with. > > > > > > c'mon. It broke them in the sense that sysrq-l went from "works" > > > to "doesn't work". > > > > You are right (i broke it with my patch) but the thing is, > > sysrq-l almost useless currently: it uses schedule_work() which > > assumes a mostly working system with full irqs and scheduling > > working fine. Now, i dont need sysrq-l on mostly working > > systems. > > > > So the 'breakage' is of something that was largely useless: and > > now you put the onus of implementing it for _all_ architectures > > (which i dont use) on me? > > I never said that. > > It's appropriate that those architectures be left with their > existing level of functionality/usefulness, as you're already > discussing. Ok, agreed. > > > It's better to break the build or to emit warnings than to > > > silently and secretly break their stuff. > > > > But that warning will bounce the ball back to me, wont it? My > > patch will be blamed for 'breaking' those architectures, right? > > It's a very crude and somewhat rude way of communicating > information to other architecture maintainers. > > A better way would be to send them an email explaining the problem > and outlining some solutions, no? I've restored the generic fallback code so there should be no change in functionality. I'll test it and push it out - you can check that patch via the commit notification email. Thanks, Ingo