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

Message-ID: <20100419213529.GA855@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:35:29 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
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


* 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.

	Ingo
--
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/