[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimWwO=6uOxxXdSgOU2vWY8a-XeW1b+GRyua2Brw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:36:33 +0800
From: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....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 6/7] x86, NMI, Add support to notify hardware error
with unknown NMI
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com> wrote:
> On 30.09.10 00:57:10, Huang Ying wrote:
>> Yes. Both MCE and perf are CPU features. I think they can be thought as
>> optional architectural features. I think it is good to put similar
>> features into arch/x86/kernel/cpu instead of traps.c. But if necessary,
>> we can put direct call in traps.c instead of notifier block.
>
> As you see it seems not being obviously, what goes here and what goes
> there. The approach is wrong. If we want to handle some hardware
> feature, we should simply register a handler for this. Implemetations
> for unhandled or unrecovered interrupts should be in traps.c. It's
> that simple.
That is possible. I just don't like it. We should keep things as
"straightforward" as possible. Direct call is more straightfoward than
indirect call like notifier chain.
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