>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.
>
Ok. Good thought, that would decouple kdb a little.
>>>>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 ...
>
Ok, I'll add a procfs interface then :-). IMHO, there's a different
between stuff in an interface that is looking forward and dead code,
though. If I added it later, I would break all the users. But there is
a balance.
>>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.
>
Ah. Yes, there is some stuff that looks the same but is subtly
different. I'll see what I can do.
>btw, the stuff you add to header files should all be in asm-i386/nmi.h
>IMHO.
>
Ok, I agree.
>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
>
>
>
Thanks,
-Corey
-
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/