[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:27:46 -0500
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, aris@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [RFC][x86] move notify_die from nmi.c to traps.c
> > > > + if (notify_die(DIE_NMI, "nmi", regs, reason, 2, SIGINT)
> > > > + == NOTIFY_STOP)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > > > /*
> > > > * Ok, so this is none of the documented NMI sources,
> > > > --
> > >
> > > Hi Don, I suppose this notify_die should be in CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > > section?
> >
> > To maintain old behaviour I suppose, yes. Personally I don't think
> > notify_die has anything to do with CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC so I put it in
> > above the #define.
> >
>
> I think it is. It becomes that if some (possible buggy in future) code
> notify default_do_nmi via NOTIFY_STOP we may loose unknown_nmi_error
How is that different if the code is under the #define?
> for non-apic configs. And I reckon that even DIE_NMI_IPI is a bit "weird"
> by not being under apic here, but this one should stay there in a
> sake of kgdb I guess.
So you are saying the only way to get NMIs on x86 is through the local
apic? That seems odd.
I really don't care either way, I was just trying to cleanup the code to
make it easier to understand. Putting it under the #define didn't seem to
make sense (though that doesn't mean there is a valid reason).
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists