From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756536Ab0JLGyf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:54:35 -0400
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:38893 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753641Ab0JLGye (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:54:34 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,319,1283756400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="615814505"
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 3/6] x86, NMI, Rewrite NMI handler
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <1286866193.2336.1503.camel@twins>
References: <1286606987-19879-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com>
	 <1286606987-19879-3-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com>
	 <1286813635.2336.617.camel@twins>  <1286844650.7768.137.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <1286863479.2336.1451.camel@twins>  <1286864080.7768.179.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <1286865071.2336.1478.camel@twins>  <1286865447.7768.184.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <1286865629.2336.1490.camel@twins>  <1286865923.7768.188.camel@yhuang-dev>
	 <1286866193.2336.1503.camel@twins>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:54:31 +0800
Message-ID: <1286866471.7768.192.camel@yhuang-dev>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:49 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:45 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:40 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:37 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > > I just think two die_value make order more explicit. 
> > > 
> > > I think it sucks, you get to iterate the list twice for no gain.
> > 
> > The gain is the code readability. And maybe we can split the list into 2
> > in the future.
> 
> No, its not making sense, there's only one event source - the NMI, it
> doesn't make any sense what so ever to then artificially split it in
> two.

They are two steps to process NMI.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying