From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the kgdb tree Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:17:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20100524181735.GC6033@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <20100323150443.608ad7f0.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100325154307.9cdeae10.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <201003242159.25770.dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20100521102158.bf6df441.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4BF5D8AF.6010408@windriver.com> <20100521110938.7bbbbf59.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100521012340.GA12372@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4BF5E1D6.1090607@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:37780 "EHLO mail-px0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752982Ab0EXSRl (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2010 14:17:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BF5E1D6.1090607@windriver.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jason Wessel Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: > On 05/20/2010 08:23 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:09:38AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Jason, > >> > >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:49:51 -0500 Jason Wessel wrote: > >>> Before brute force toggling it, it seems we should check the value and > >>> restore it after the execution of handle_sysrq(). > >> Indeed, at the time I couldn't find an easy way to do that. > >> > >>> I'll have to look and see if there is an access function for this. > >> Great, thanks. > > > > I would not mind re-exporting sysrq_on() again. > > > > We could but I don't know that you need to. > > Would you be willing to sign off on a change like the one below > Dmitry? If so then I'll push it into kgdb-next. > > It is as simple as making the return from sysrq_toggle_support a bit > more meaningful. > I do not think it is a very good idea... What if some other process enales SysRq in the mean time. Do we really need to force SysRq on or off? Maybe we should export __handle_sysrq() instead? Also, I think I need to add locking in sysrq_toggle_support(), which will make it unsuitable for using in kdb handler, won't it? -- Dmitry