On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 14:11:42 +0000, John Levon wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 03:07:27PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>
>> I don't like the idea of registering apic_driver when !cpu_has_apic,
>> but it might be needed for the local-APIC NMI watchdog.
>
>Really ?
Pavel's patch changes nmi.c to include:
extern struct sys_device device_apic;
static int __init init_nmi_devicefs(void)
{
driver_register(&nmi_driver);
device_nmi.parent = &device_apic.dev;
return device_register(&device_nmi);
}
device_initcall(init_nmi_devicefs);
so nmi.c will unconditionally register a device with the local
APIC's device as parent. I strongly suspect this will break if
&device_apic hasn't itself been device_register():d.
The NMI driver's suspend/resume procedures check nmi_active before
doing anything, so registering the NMI device unconditionally
is _probably_ safe. (Although I personally think it should be
conditional.)
>as long as it's exported to modules. I'd probably prefer
>to just have :
>
> disable_nmi_watchdog();
> ...
> enable_nmi_watchdog();
>
>and have those do the right thing depending on a (nmi.c local)
>nmi_watchdog.
Yeah, that's nicer. disable_nmi_watchdog() could easily stash away
the previous state, and enable_nmi_watchdog() could check that copy
and conditionally call setup_apic_nmi_watchdog().
/Mikael
-
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 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST