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]