Re: [PATCH 1/2] Always probe the NMI watchdog

> I looked at the code I have in my tree coming from Bjon's patches and
> I am a bit confused by the flow for probing as well.

Yes, it's a little risky. Perhaps it's better to readd the separate CPU switch
from .21 there again for 2.6.22. Ugly, but should be safe

-Andi
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] Separate performance counter reservation from nmi watchdog
    • From: Björn Steinbrink <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] Always probe the NMI watchdog
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] Always probe the NMI watchdog
    • From: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: CompactFlash driver for PA Semi Electra boards
• Next by Date: Re: [ofa-general] [POSSIBLE BUG] use of tasklet_unlock in ipath_no_bufs_available
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Always probe the NMI watchdog
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Always probe the NMI watchdog
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]