[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100927134341.GQ13563@erda.amd.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:43:41 +0200
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
CC: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 7/7] x86, NMI, Remove do_nmi_callback logic
On 27.09.10 08:56:44, huang ying wrote:
> >> -static int unknown_nmi_panic_callback(struct pt_regs *regs, int cpu)
> >> -{
> >> - unsigned char reason = get_nmi_reason();
> >> - char buf[64];
> >> -
> >> - sprintf(buf, "NMI received for unknown reason %02x\n", reason);
> >> - die_nmi(buf, regs, 1); /* Always panic here */
> >> - return 0;
> >
> > You are dropping this code that is different to panic().
>
> What is the difference? Is it relevant?
I think yes, since the code behaves different. Otherwise we could
remove die_nmi() completly and replace it by panic(). But both are
different implementions. Maybe we can merge the code, but I didn't
look at it closly.
-Robert
--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
--
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