lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-18 19:01    [W:0.067 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site