On Thursday 13 July 2006 19:33, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Michal Schmidt <[email protected]> writes:
> >> if (stat == 0xff)
> >> return -ENODEV;
> >> touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> >> + touch_nmi_watchdog();
> > You can remove the touch_softlock_watchdog then. It's implied in
> > touch_nmi_watchdog
>
> I don't think that's always true. There are architectures where
> touch_nmi_watchdog is a NOP. This is in include/linux/nmi.h:
>
> #ifdef ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG
> extern void touch_nmi_watchdog(void);
> #else
> # define touch_nmi_watchdog() do { } while(0)
> #endif
That's broken code then. It should be defined to touch_softlock_watchdog
for the !ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG then.
-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/
[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]
