Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:32:47 -0400 | From | Don Zickus <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2 6/7] x86, NMI, Add support to notify hardware error with unknown NMI |
| |
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:36:12AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: > > I tend to agree with Robert here. I don't know if there were any 'rules' > > to which handlers get directly called versus ones that go through the > > die_chain, so I was originally going to let it go. But if they aren't > > any, it does look cleaner to have everything in die_chains. > > Personally, I think directly call has better readability than
I am confused what type of readability you are looking for? Can we create a sysfs entry to give you that info?
> notifier_chain in general. Notifier_chain is for: > > - Call functions in module. > - Need to enable/disable (via register/unregister) at run time. > - Call functions from low layer to high layer. > > Otherwise, notifier_chain should be avoid if possible. So I think it is > better to keep direct call as much as possible.
But the problem is you have to export all this platform specific stuff to traps.c and surround the code with #ifdef's, which start to look ugly.
Is there any reason why traps.c should know about MCA/HEST/<other hardware errors>? Shouldn't it be abstracted away?
Honestly, I would be interested in creating a southbridge driver and moving the port 0x61 code there and keeping the default_do_nmi() function stupidly simple (just a call to the die_chain and the unknown_nmi_error()).
Just my two cents.
Cheers, Don
| |