[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111012163358.GD31857@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:33:59 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
seiji.aguchi@....com, vgoyal@...hat.com, mjg@...hat.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, gong.chen@...el.com, satoru.moriya@....com,
avi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, reboot: Use NMI instead of REBOOT_VECTOR to
stop cpus
* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:30:25AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + if (register_nmi_handler(NMI_LOCAL, smp_stop_nmi_callback,
> > > + NMI_FLAG_FIRST, "smp_stop"))
> > > + return; /* return what? */
> >
> > That comment looks a bit odd.
>
> Yeah, I copied it from the kdump code because it seemed relevant.
> The point was to express the paranoid concern, if we can't register
> the NMI handler for whatever reason, what happens!?. How do we
> explain to anyone we failed to shut down the other cpus?
>
> I can expand the comment to be more specific in the paranoia. I
> just wasn't sure the right way to handle that failure case.
Just add something like:
/* Note: we ignore failures here */
if there's nothing intelligent possible.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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