lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:35:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very
> > > > similar in structure to the softlockup detector. Using Ingo's suggestion,
> > > > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c.
> > > >
> > > > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector
> > > > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so
> > > > to see if there are any lockups.
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > After making a bunch of cleanups, I am stuck debating whether to continue
> > updating this patch on the stale branch perf/nmi on Ingo's tree or just
> > repost the whole patch again (which isn't much bigger just adds the
> > arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c piece).
> >
> > Part of the new patch series includes removing kernel/nmi_watchdog.c, which
> > seemed kinda silly because it was only an intermediate file until things got
> > shifted to kernel/watchdog.c
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I'd prefer relative patches as the current perf/nmi bits are tested quite
> well.
>
> Intermediate stages are not a problem: 90% of the code in the kernel's Git
> history is 'intermediate' as well, in hindsight. What matters is that the
> workflow that resulted was clean and that the patches were (and are) clean.

Ok, I'll continue that then. Thanks.

Cheers,
Don


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-19 23:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans