* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> another solution would be to break the lock only once during the
> kernel's lifetime. The system is messed up anyway if it needs multiple
> lock breaks to get an oops out to the console. We dont care about
> followup oopses - the first oops is that matters.

i.e. something like the attached patch, against BK-curr. (i've also
attached a cleanup patch that gets rid of the many instances of
bust_spinlocks() - we now have a generic one in lib/bust_spinlocks.c)

i consider any secondary lockup after the first oops has been printed a
feature - sometimes the first oops gets washed away by the many followup
oopses.

i've tested the patch with parallel SMP oopses - they seem to be
serialized now. (but it's hard to time the oopses right.)

	Ingo