[PATCH] pmac_zilog.c: Fix break handling, add sysrq support

Benjamin Herrenschmidt benh at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Aug 10 10:24:17 EST 2004

> Yes, I agree, that sounds way cleaner than just not lock at all in
> console_write().  But then of course you could still runt into a race
> condition where another thread is already spinning for the lock.  As
> soon as we drop the lock, the other thread would grab it... and when
> console_write() is called via handle_sysrq(), it's already too late,
> isn't it?

Ugh ? handle_sysrq() is called from irq, this should be an irqsafe
lock, another thread on another cpu would just cause us to wait a bit...

> I think this is a generic issue that all serial drivers supporting
> sysrq() face.  Instead of putting some special different solution into
> each driver, I'd say the code from sn_sal_console_write() needs to be
> generalized.
> Cc'ing the serial maintainer exactly for this reason.
> Russell, what is the preferred solution for this deadlock-prone
> situation?
> > I'll have a look, thanks much.
> > Ben.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org>

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list