RE: [PATCH] pstore: avoid recursive spinlocks in theoops_in_progress case

[Luck, Tony]

> And my plan was to get rid of the fact that backends touch pstore->buf
> directly. Backends would always receive anonymous 'buf' pointer (we
> already have write_buf callback that does exactly this), and thus it

It feels like we are just shuffling the lock problem from one place
to another.  In the panic case we have to use a pre-allocated buffer
(hoping that we can allocate one seems to be a foolish plan). So
we'd need a lock around use of that buffer somewhere - whether
it is in the panic code, the pstore generic code, or the back-end
driver.

Can you describe where you'd like to end up?

-Tony
N‹§²æìr¸›yúèšØb²X¬¶ÇvØ^–)Þ{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±‘êçzX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚ&j:+v‰¨¾«‘êçzZ+€Ê+zf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûiÿûàz¹®w¥¢¸?™¨è­Ú&¢)ßf”ù^jÇy§m…á@A«a¶Úÿ0¶ìh®å’i