Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:49:15 -0600 | From | Corey Minyard <> | Subject | Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:05:56 +1100 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote: > > >> Andrew Morton writes: >> >> >>> This is all fairly unpleasant. >>> >>> What architecture is preventing us from using DIE_NMI_POST on all >>> architectures which support ipmi? ia64? >>> >>> It would be better to simply require that all ipmi-using architectures >>> implement notify_die(DIE_NMI_POST, ...). >>> >> We're starting to see IPMI creeping on powerpc as well, and we don't >> have an NMI. >> PowerPC could have an NMI, at least on many of the processors, if manufacturers would wire in the MCP line and use it as an NMI. >> > > Sure, but you could implement the registration function. I mean, you > _would_ call the NMI callback if you could, right ;) > > As it stands, this change is pretty gruesome... > Yes, it's certainly not ideal. Most architectures do not have asm/kdebug.h, which was the reason for CONFIG_HAVE_STANDARD_NOTIFY_DIE. I know there are IPMI implementations on x86, ia64, ARM, MIPS, and PowerPC.
So I see the following options besides what's already there:
1) add asm/kdebug.h and DIE_NMI_POST to everything that might have an IPMI implementation. 2) use CONFIG_X86 to tell if NMI will work, since that's the only thing it will work on at the present.
I don't have any way to know how different systems have implemented that feature, so I can't actually implement it for the various architectures (plus I don't have any of those boards). So maybe #2 is the best?
-Corey - 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/
| |