lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Add MCE resume under ia32
Hi!

> > > diff -puN arch/i386/power/cpu.c~mcheck_resume arch/i386/power/cpu.c
> > > --- linux-2.6.13-rc6/arch/i386/power/cpu.c~mcheck_resume 2005-08-23 09:32:13.054008584 +0800
> > > +++ linux-2.6.13-rc6-root/arch/i386/power/cpu.c 2005-08-23 09:41:54.992540480 +0800
> > > @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ static void fix_processor_context(void)
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > +extern void mcheck_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c);
> > > +
> > > void __restore_processor_state(struct saved_context *ctxt)
> > > {
> > > /*
> >
> >
> > this should go to some header file and most importantly
> If you agree my other points, I'll do this.

Ok.

> > > @@ -138,6 +140,9 @@ void __restore_processor_state(struct sa
> > > fix_processor_context();
> > > do_fpu_end();
> > > mtrr_ap_init();
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE
> > > + mcheck_init(&boot_cpu_data);
> > > +#endif
> > > }
> >
> > c) can't we register MCEs like some kind of system device so that this
> > kind of hooks is not neccessary?
> Like x86-64 does, right? In this way, we must register a device for each
> cpu. But APs directly call mcheck_init in resume time (cpuhotplug
> framework). Only BP requires to call the resume method, so I think
> restore_processor_state calls it might be cleaner.

Ahha, ok.
Pavel
--
if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-24 10:55    [W:0.101 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site