[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070214195718.e78458cf.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:57:18 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: minyard@....org
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:12:57 -0600 Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:
>
> Convert over to the new NMI handling for getting IPMI watchdog
> timeouts via an NMI. This add config options to know if there
> is the ability to receive NMIs and if it has an NMI post processing
> call. Then it modifies the IPMI watchdog to take advantage of
> this so that it can know if an NMI comes in.
>
> It also adds testing that the IPMI NMI watchdog works.
>
> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.19-rc6/arch/i386/Kconfig.debug
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.19-rc6.orig/arch/i386/Kconfig.debug
> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc6/arch/i386/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -4,6 +4,10 @@ config TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT
> bool
> default y
>
> +config HAVE_STANDARD_NOTIFY_DIE
> + bool
> + default y
> +
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, ...).
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists