lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup
    On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:52:38AM -0400, Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho wrote:
    > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:46:50PM -0400, Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho wrote:
    > > > Hi Don,
    > > > > +/* deprecated */
    > > > > +static int __init nosoftlockup_setup(char *str)
    > > > > +{
    > > > > + no_watchdog = 1;
    > > > > + return 1;
    > > > > +}
    > > > > +__setup("nosoftlockup", nosoftlockup_setup);
    > > > > +static int __init nonmi_watchdog_setup(char *str)
    > > > > +{
    > > > > + no_watchdog = 1;
    > > > > + return 1;
    > > > > +}
    > > > > +__setup("nonmi_watchdog", nonmi_watchdog_setup);
    > > > didn't you just add nonmi_watchdog parameter? I don't think there's a reason
    > > > to keep compatibility here.
    > >
    > > Hmm, I think you are right. I thought I added that because it existed in
    > > the old nmi_watchdog setup but I can't find it. So yeah, I can drop that.
    > you could provide a nmi_watchdog=0 backwards compatibility and warn about
    > values != 0
    >
    > --
    > Aristeu
    >

    Sorry for a long delay, I think we might need to inform a user that "lapic",
    "ioapic" is no longer used (perf-nmi is supposed to substitute the former nmi
    code in a long term right?) so that for some time period, say the whole release
    cycle, if lapic or ioapic, or numbers are passed to nmi_watchdog= setup option
    we would just print out that the parameters are deprecated and better to not
    use them any longer. Hm?

    -- Cyrill


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-05 22:13    [W:0.023 / U:59.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site