Zachary Amsden <[email protected]> writes:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:45:04AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Changes since 2.6.16-mm2:
>>> ...
>>> +x86-clean-up-subarch-definitions.patch
>>> ...
>>> x86 updates.
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> The following looks bogus:
>>
>> config KEXEC
>> bool "kexec system call (EXPERIMENTAL)"
>> - depends on EXPERIMENTAL
>> + depends on EXPERIMENTAL && (!X86_VOYAGER && SMP)
>>
>> The dependencies do now say that KEXEC is only offered for machines that are
>> _both_ non-Voyager and SMP.
>>
>> Is the problem you wanted to express that a non-SMP Voyager config didn't
>> compile?
>>
>
> Whoops, that should be
>
> depends on EXPERIMENTAL && !(X86_VOYAGER && SMP)
>
> Voyager SMP builds don't compile with kexec(), and it isn't clear how to
> shootdown CPUs using NMIs without an APIC.
Well unless you need the crash dump functionality you don't need to
shot down CPUs using NMIs.
So I expect machine_crash_shutdown or at least a part of it
should be a call into the subarchitecture code. Having
it be a noop on voyager would be perfectly fine.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
