[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <281207A1-2989-43A5-B852-F19B3A1274FB@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:12:27 -0800
From: Yinghai <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"gorcunov@...nvz.org" <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86, nmi_watchdog: remove the old nmi_watchdog
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:23:39PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> - {
>>> - .procname = "nmi_watchdog",
>>> - .data = &nmi_watchdog_enabled,
>>> - .maxlen = sizeof (int),
>>> - .mode = 0644,
>>> - .proc_handler = proc_nmi_enabled,
>>> - },
>>
>> wonder if you can keep nmi_watchdog in sysctl? So in run-time it could be disabled after it booted up.
>
> Well, with the new code I have watchdog_enabled which does the same thing.
> With the nmi watchdog moving to generic code, the idea was to call it a
> hardlockup detector. I guess I was trying to rename things to avoid using
> nmi all over the place to reflect the idea that a hardlockup might be able
> to be used by something other than an nmi.
>
> I can probably wrap this around watchdog_enabled to preserve it I suppose.
> Let me know.
Yes that will be good
Thanks--
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