[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100927152014.GY26290@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:20:14 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.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 6/7] x86, NMI, Add support to notify hardware error
with unknown NMI
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 03:38:16PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 27.09.10 08:47:53, huang ying wrote:
>
> > I think explicit function calls have better readability than notifier chains.
>
> What is different to unknown_nmi() then?
>
> So no, in your case you want to catch unknown nmis for a certain
> hardware and then throw a panic. This should be clearly implemented in
> a separate handler for this piece of hardware.
>
> We want to cleanup this code and throw out all hardware specific
> snippets, and not introduce new special cases here.
I tend to agree with Robert here. I don't know if there were any 'rules'
to which handlers get directly called versus ones that go through the
die_chain, so I was originally going to let it go. But if they aren't
any, it does look cleaner to have everything in die_chains.
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