linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:51:27 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
	gorcunov@...il.com, aris@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:35:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/