Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86, NMI: Remove DIE_NMI_IPI and add priorties tohandlers

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 21:41 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:27:25PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> > When re-ordering how the NMI handles its callbacks, a conversation started
> > asking what DIE_NMI_IPI meant.  No one could answer it.
> 
> It should have came from commit
> 
>  | commit c4b2bffee2a4115fed2825530f2b906ee2f17bd7
>  | Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
>  | Date:   Fri Jan 23 18:46:40 2004 -0800
>  |
>  |   [PATCH] x86-64 merge
>  |   
>  |   Mainly lots of bug fixes and a few minor features. One change is that
>  |   it uses drivers/Kconfig now like i386. This requires a few minor changes in
>  |   outside Kconfig files which I am sending separately.
>  ...
> 
> Andi do you remember what the initial idea was? Didn't find any user of it
> even in this old commit. Just curious.
> 
> > 
> > Noticing that is was wasteful to call the die_chain a second time with just
> > another argument, DIE_NMI_IPI, it was decided to nuke it and add priorities
> > to the die_chain handlers to maintain existing behaviour.
> > 
> > This patch replaces DIE_NMI_IPI with the appropriate option, mostly DIE_NMI.
> > Then it adds priorities to those handlers, using a globally defined set of
> > priorities for NMI.
> > 
> > The thought is eventually we will just switch the nmi handlers from the
> > die_chain to something more nmi specific.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
>  Don, maybe switching to say new chains like chain_perf and friends would be
> more readable/clean? I'm not against this patch by any means, but just a thought ;)

Its a single event (NMI) so we only need a single notifier list, the
current one seems to be just fine.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/