lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] NMI request/release
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 08:02:11AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:

> Ok. I'd be inclined to leave the high-usage things where they are,
> although it would be nice to be able to make the NMI watchdog a module.
> oprofile should probably stay where it is. Do you have an alternate
> implementation that would be more efficient?

I'm beginning to think you're right. You should ask Keith Owens if kdb
etc. can use your API successfully.

> >>dev_name could be removed, although it would be nice for reporting
> >>
> >Reporting what ? from where ?
> >
> Registered NMI users in procfs.

Then if you add such code, you can add dev_name ... I hate code that
does nothing ...

> Yes. But I don't understand why they would be used in the notifier code.

I'm trying to reduce code duplication - you do basically the same thing
notifier register/unregister does.

btw, the stuff you add to header files should all be in asm-i386/nmi.h
IMHO.

It would make it clear that there's a fast-path "set nmi handler" and
the slow one, and you can document the difference there, if that's what
we're going to do.

regards
john

--
"Lots of companies would love to be in our hole."
- Scott McNealy
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.124 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site