linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] watchdog: internally split softlockup and hardlockup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20150121142308.5c88fc5a6ea51a70e64d3c9c@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:23:08 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	uobergfe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] watchdog: internally split softlockup and
 hardlockup

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:15:52 -0500 Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:20:15AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> > The hardlockup and softockup had always been tied together.  Due to the request
> > of KVM folks, they had a need to have one enabled but not the other.
> > Internally rework the code to split things apart more cleanly.
> > 
> > There is a bunch of churn here, but the end result should be code that should
> > be easier to maintain and fix without knowing the internals of what is going
> > on.
> > 
> > Tested by Uli and myself.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Poking again.  What can I do to move this along?  Should I repost?

I don't actually remember seeing this, but November was soooo long ago ;)

Yes please - refresh, retest, resend.  Don't forget to gather up any
new acked/reviewed/tested-by's.

--
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/