[PATCH] s390: Remove obsolete bust_spinlock() implementation

[PATCH] s390: Remove obsolete bust_spinlock() implementation

[Petr Mladek]

The commit cefc8be82403cf ("Consolidate bust_spinlocks()") kept
the s390-specific implementation because of the absence of CONFIG_VT.
In fact, the only difference was calling console_unblank() instead of
unblank_screen().

The common implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c started to call
unblank_screen() explicitly since the commit b61312d353da187
("oops handling: ensure that any oops is flushed to the mtdoops
console").

As a result, the custom implementation is not longer necessary.
And we could get all the other improvements of the common
implementation for free.

Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
---
 arch/s390/mm/fault.c | 24 ------------------------
 1 file changed, 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
index 2b8f32f56e0c..11613362c4e7 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
@@ -81,30 +81,6 @@ static inline int notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-
-/*
- * Unlock any spinlocks which will prevent us from getting the
- * message out.
- */
-void bust_spinlocks(int yes)
-{
-	if (yes) {
-		oops_in_progress = 1;
-	} else {
-		int loglevel_save = console_loglevel;
-		console_unblank();
-		oops_in_progress = 0;
-		/*
-		 * OK, the message is on the console.  Now we call printk()
-		 * without oops_in_progress set so that printk will give klogd
-		 * a poke.  Hold onto your hats...
-		 */
-		console_loglevel = 15;
-		printk(" ");
-		console_loglevel = loglevel_save;
-	}
-}
-
 /*
  * Find out which address space caused the exception.
  * Access register mode is impossible, ignore space == 3.
-- 
2.13.7

Re: [PATCH] s390: Remove obsolete bust_spinlock() implementation

[Christoph Hellwig]

Please remove the weak attribute from the generic implementation as
well now that the last override is gone.

Re: [PATCH] s390: Remove obsolete bust_spinlock() implementation

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (11/22/18 15:15), Petr Mladek wrote:
> The commit cefc8be82403cf ("Consolidate bust_spinlocks()") kept
> the s390-specific implementation because of the absence of CONFIG_VT.
> In fact, the only difference was calling console_unblank() instead of
> unblank_screen().
> 
> The common implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c started to call
> unblank_screen() explicitly since the commit b61312d353da187
> ("oops handling: ensure that any oops is flushed to the mtdoops
> console").
> 
> As a result, the custom implementation is not longer necessary.
> And we could get all the other improvements of the common
> implementation for free.

I believe I sent a similar patch several weeks ago and it's
in s390 patch queue as of now, waiting for the next merge
window.

lkml.kernel.org/r/20181025081108.GB26561@osiris

	-ss

Re: [PATCH] s390: Remove obsolete bust_spinlock() implementation

[Heiko Carstens]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:17:48AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/22/18 15:15), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The commit cefc8be82403cf ("Consolidate bust_spinlocks()") kept
> > the s390-specific implementation because of the absence of CONFIG_VT.
> > In fact, the only difference was calling console_unblank() instead of
> > unblank_screen().
> > 
> > The common implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c started to call
> > unblank_screen() explicitly since the commit b61312d353da187
> > ("oops handling: ensure that any oops is flushed to the mtdoops
> > console").
> > 
> > As a result, the custom implementation is not longer necessary.
> > And we could get all the other improvements of the common
> > implementation for free.
> 
> I believe I sent a similar patch several weeks ago and it's
> in s390 patch queue as of now, waiting for the next merge
> window.
> 
> lkml.kernel.org/r/20181025081108.GB26561@osiris

Yes, it will be added soon to the features branch of the
s390/linux.git repository on kernel.org and then hit linux-next.

Re: [PATCH] s390: Remove obsolete bust_spinlock() implementation

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:02:12 +0100
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:17:48AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (11/22/18 15:15), Petr Mladek wrote:  
> > > The commit cefc8be82403cf ("Consolidate bust_spinlocks()") kept
> > > the s390-specific implementation because of the absence of CONFIG_VT.
> > > In fact, the only difference was calling console_unblank() instead of
> > > unblank_screen().
> > > 
> > > The common implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c started to call
> > > unblank_screen() explicitly since the commit b61312d353da187
> > > ("oops handling: ensure that any oops is flushed to the mtdoops
> > > console").
> > > 
> > > As a result, the custom implementation is not longer necessary.
> > > And we could get all the other improvements of the common
> > > implementation for free.  
> > 
> > I believe I sent a similar patch several weeks ago and it's
> > in s390 patch queue as of now, waiting for the next merge
> > window.
> > 
> > lkml.kernel.org/r/20181025081108.GB26561@osiris  
> 
> Yes, it will be added soon to the features branch of the
> s390/linux.git repository on kernel.org and then hit linux-next.

The patch is now queued for the next merge window.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.