[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQkiOdYetK8RSgACPukJvuYN2vyPziox0nvXVB@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:51:23 +0800
From: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] x86, NMI, Add symbol definition for NMI magic constants
Hi, Don,
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:51:00AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> Replace the NMI related magic numbers with symbol constants.
>
> Hi Huang,
>
> Sorry for disappearing for a week..
>
> Ingo asked me to shepherd these patches. I finally got around to do some
> testing on them. I'll do some more tomorrow.
Thanks. I will post a new version in next week according to comments
collected so far.
> Anyway, I don't have a problem with patches 1-3 and 6 (I guess the rename
> and rename again doesn't really bother me and it kinda makes some logical
> sense).
>
> I am ok with most of patch 4 but I was wondering if you could split out
> the part of using other cpus to access the reason register. To me it seem
> like the nmi handler rewrite and allowing !bsp cpus to access the reason
> registers were two different ideas. For bisecting reasons it would be
> easier to seperate them in case we have problems with lost NMIs later. It
> would be easier to determine if the lost NMIs were from the rewrite or the
> migration of the reason register to other cpus.
Yes. It's reasonable, I will do it.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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