From: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: machine_power_off should not return
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:12:27 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140326101227.GC941@arch.cereza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140326005115.GW7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Russell,
Thanks for the reply!
On Mar 26, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:45:55PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >
> > Without this patch we got the heartbeat's reboot_notifier called twice while
> > testing the recent hibernation patches, which was unexpected and produced a
> > kernel panic: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/19/363
>
> I don't see why we should make this change. kernel/reboot.c handles
> this function returning, so other places should do too.
>
> Even on x86, this function can return:
>
[..]
>
> Therefore, I'd say... it's a bug in the hibernation code - or we probably
> have many buggy architectures. I'd suggest fixing the hibernation code
> rather than stuffing some workaround like an endless loop into every
> architecture.
>
Which is exactly what Sebastian did first:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/605
But Pavel asked to fix ARM's machine_power_off instead.
Also, looking at the other architectures, it seems this API is not well
defined: some of them have an infinite loop, some don't. So it's hard to
say the function is supposed to return or not.
--
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: machine_power_off should not return
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:12:27 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140326101227.GC941@arch.cereza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140326005115.GW7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Russell,
Thanks for the reply!
On Mar 26, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:45:55PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >
> > Without this patch we got the heartbeat's reboot_notifier called twice while
> > testing the recent hibernation patches, which was unexpected and produced a
> > kernel panic: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/19/363
>
> I don't see why we should make this change. kernel/reboot.c handles
> this function returning, so other places should do too.
>
> Even on x86, this function can return:
>
[..]
>
> Therefore, I'd say... it's a bug in the hibernation code - or we probably
> have many buggy architectures. I'd suggest fixing the hibernation code
> rather than stuffing some workaround like an endless loop into every
> architecture.
>
Which is exactly what Sebastian did first:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/605
But Pavel asked to fix ARM's machine_power_off instead.
Also, looking at the other architectures, it seems this API is not well
defined: some of them have an infinite loop, some don't. So it's hard to
say the function is supposed to return or not.
--
Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-26 10:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-24 18:13 [PATCH] ARM: machine_power_off should not return Sebastian Capella
2014-03-25 22:45 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2014-03-25 22:45 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2014-03-26 0:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-03-26 0:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-03-26 10:12 ` Ezequiel Garcia [this message]
2014-03-26 10:12 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2014-03-26 10:59 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-03-26 10:59 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140326101227.GC941@arch.cereza \
--to=ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sebastian.capella@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.