On Thursday 13 July 2006 19:33, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Michal Schmidt <xschmi00@stud.feec.vutbr.cz> writes:
> >> if (stat == 0xff)
> >>  			return -ENODEV;
> >>  		touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> >> +		touch_nmi_watchdog();
> > You can remove the touch_softlock_watchdog then. It's implied in 
> > touch_nmi_watchdog
> 
> I don't think that's always true. There are architectures where 
> touch_nmi_watchdog is a NOP. This is in include/linux/nmi.h:
> 
> #ifdef ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG
> extern void touch_nmi_watchdog(void);
> #else
> # define touch_nmi_watchdog() do { } while(0)
> #endif

That's broken code then. It should be defined to touch_softlock_watchdog
for the !ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG then.

-Andi
-
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/