Re: [PATCH] [1/2] Add a SYSTEM_PANIC state

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:32:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 21:16:51 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:04:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue,  2 Sep 2008 15:49:22 +0200 (CEST)
> > > Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/kernel.h
> > > > +++ linux/include/linux/kernel.h
> > > > @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ extern enum system_states {
> > > >  	SYSTEM_POWER_OFF,
> > > >  	SYSTEM_RESTART,
> > > >  	SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK,
> > > > +	SYSTEM_PANIC,
> > > >  } system_state;
> > > 
> > > system_state is such a crock.  I wonder what other random code all over
> > > the place is looking at system_state and will get unexpectedly broken
> > > by other "unrelated" changes such as this..
> > 
> > >From a quick grep none.
> > 
> > Also I think it's a natural extension.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It's not a heck of a lot nicer, but we could do this:
> > 
> > Sorry but I think it's far worse. How do you think it's
> > better?
> > 
> 
> For the reason which I stated and which you carefully deleted prior to
> asking my reason.

You mean " This has the
advantage of not introducing any additional global states and is a bit
more logical, I think." ?

Seems dodgy to me but ok. Also I think personally SYSTEM_PANIC 
is more logical than making oops_in_progress stand for panic too.

Anyways it's moot because it looks like smp_call_function is not
easily salavagable for panic anyways.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com