[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110628162714.GV7027@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:27:14 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Add hw_watchdog_set_attr() in a sake of
nmi-watchdog on P4
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:11:10PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> wd_attr->sample_period = hw_nmi_get_sample_period(watchdog_thresh);
> --> hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr(wd_attr);
>
> itself? Ie you suspect some different point where to call it?
>
> When I said not a "best place" I meant about __weak function bare implementation
> placed that near to call (which is looked somehow suspicious for me from overall
> code structure), but I didn't mean the call sequence itself ;)
Sorry I was probably vague. What I meant to say is that the call
'hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr' is really x86 specific and thought we could
bury it down there somehow. Yeah the __weak symbol cleverly gets around
it.
I was thinking it would be nice to stick it in hw_nmi_get_sample_period as
that is arch specific. But it really wouldn't make sense there.
It's probably fine for now and maybe someday we can come up with a better
idea where to put it.
I don't want to waste to much time thinking about it as I have other
issues I am dealing with. I just wanted to get this resolved so I can
push this patch into RHEL-6.
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