Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:54:32 +0100 (BST) | From | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <> | Subject | Re: nmi_watchdog suspicious |
| |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Maciej, it seems we are talking about different code snippets ;) > I'm talking only about touch_nmi_watchdog(). By now (in -tip tree > we have) > > void touch_nmi_watchdog(void) > { > if (nmi_watchdog == NMI_LOCAL_APIC || > nmi_watchdog == NMI_IO_APIC) { > unsigned cpu; > ... > > so we check explicitly the values (so if touch_nmi_watchdog > was called when nmi_watchdog = 0 or -1U this code will not > be executed anyway). So I think I'm a bit lost, Maciej... I just > can't figure out what is wrong with this code, so please help > me ;). If you're talking about apic code in _general_ design > then...well, I think I need some time to _understand_ the code > say byte-by-byte first.
The value of nmi_watchdog being NMI_IO_APIC or NMI_LOCAL_APIC does not mean the watchdog has been set up already. This observation applies both here and elsewhere, e.g. to nmi_watchdog_tick().
Maciej
| |