lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRegression with orderly_poweroff()
From
Date
Hi Linus !

A couple of weeks ago, David sent an email that went unanswered about a
regression concerning orderly_poweroff(). I think the original patch
causing it should be reverted, here's the actual email with the
explanation:

<<<
Subject: orderly_poweroff() is no longer safe in atomic context

Commit 6c0c0d4d1080840eabb3d055d2fd81911111c5fd "poweroff: fix bug in
orderly_poweroff()" apparently fixes one bug in orderly_poweroff(),
but introduces another. The comments on orderly_poweroff() claim it
can be called from any context - and indeed we call it from interrupt
context in arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ras.c for example. But
since that commit this is no longer safe, since
call_usermodehelper_fns() is not safe in interrupt context without the
UMH_NO_WAIT option.

I'm having trouble understanding the commit message to see what the
original bug being fixed was. Specifically I can't make sense of:

| The bug here is, step 1 is always successful with param
| UMH_NO_WAIT, which obey the design goal of orderly_poweroff.

And without understanding the original bug, I'm not sure what the
correct fix is.
>>>

Cheers,
Ben.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-12 05:02    [W:0.079 / U:0.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site