On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 08:02:11AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> Ok. I'd be inclined to leave the high-usage things where they are,
> although it would be nice to be able to make the NMI watchdog a module.
> oprofile should probably stay where it is. Do you have an alternate
> implementation that would be more efficient?
I'm beginning to think you're right. You should ask Keith Owens if kdb
etc. can use your API successfully.
> >>dev_name could be removed, although it would be nice for reporting
> >>
> >Reporting what ? from where ?
> >
> Registered NMI users in procfs.
Then if you add such code, you can add dev_name ... I hate code that
does nothing ...
> Yes. But I don't understand why they would be used in the notifier code.
I'm trying to reduce code duplication - you do basically the same thing
notifier register/unregister does.
btw, the stuff you add to header files should all be in asm-i386/nmi.h
IMHO.
It would make it clear that there's a fast-path "set nmi handler" and
the slow one, and you can document the difference there, if that's what
we're going to do.
regards
john
-- "Lots of companies would love to be in our hole." - Scott McNealy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:58 EST