From: Jan Beulich Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:29:33 +0000 (-0700) Subject: handle recursive calls to bust_spinlocks() X-Git-Tag: accepted/tizen/common/20141203.182822~27090 X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=004429956b4875e6bc2a31833f75363ce48cbea9;p=platform%2Fkernel%2Flinux-arm64.git handle recursive calls to bust_spinlocks() Various architectures may call bust_spinlocks() recursively; the function itself, however, doesn't appear to be meant to be called in this manner. Nevertheless, this doesn't appear to be a problem as long as bust_spinlocks(0) doesn't get called twice in a row (otherwise, unblank_screen() may enter the scheduler). However, at least on i386 die() has been capable of returning (and on other architectures this should really be that way, too) when notify_die() returns NOTIFY_STOP. Short of getting a reply to a respective query, this patch makes bust_spinlocks() increment/decrement oops_in_progress, and wake klogd only when the count drops back to zero. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- diff --git a/lib/bust_spinlocks.c b/lib/bust_spinlocks.c index accb356..486da62 100644 --- a/lib/bust_spinlocks.c +++ b/lib/bust_spinlocks.c @@ -17,13 +17,13 @@ void __attribute__((weak)) bust_spinlocks(int yes) { if (yes) { - oops_in_progress = 1; + ++oops_in_progress; } else { #ifdef CONFIG_VT unblank_screen(); #endif - oops_in_progress = 0; - wake_up_klogd(); + if (--oops_in_progress == 0) + wake_up_klogd(); } }