>> I've been wondering for a while why we don't just make touch_nmi_watchdog
>> do an implicit call to touch_softlockup_watchdog. I can't think of a situation
>> where we'd want to do one but not the other, and adding patches like this
>> seems to be an uphill battle (I know at least two other places that need
>> this off the top of my head).
>
>Very good idea.
>
>Someone did it already in the SUSE kernel and it helped considerably
>there.
Actually, plain 2.6.15 already has this (for i386 and x86-64 at least). Hence the first of the two hunks the patch
consists of is superfluous. The second hunk, however, is still necessary (as there's no pre-existing
touch_nmi_watchdog() call there, and there also shouldn't be one as interrupts get re-enabled before getting there).
Jan
-
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]
