[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314022580.24275.33.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:16:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jason.wessel@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] x86, nmi: create new NMI handler routines
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 16:37 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> +static struct nmiaction *__free_nmi(unsigned int type, const char *name)
> +{
> + struct nmi_desc *desc = nmi_to_desc(type);
> + struct nmiaction *n, **np = &(desc->head);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
> +
...
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + return *np;
> +}
> +void unregister_nmi_handler(unsigned int type, const char *name)
> +{
> + kfree(__free_nmi(type, name));
> +}
This code is weird.. why not have the kfree() in __free_nmi(), also why
use sync_rcu() and not use kfree_rcu()?
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_nmi_handler);
*g*, so binary modules can register an NMI handler, but can't unregister
it..?
--
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