From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S262062AbULLJiH@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S262062AbULLJiH (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:38:07 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262060AbULLJiH
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:38:07 -0500
Received: from mail-relay-1.tiscali.it ([213.205.33.41]:37597 "EHLO
	mail-relay-1.tiscali.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S262062AbULLJhx (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:37:53 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:37:14 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
       George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>,
       dipankar@in.ibm.com, ganzinger@mvista.com,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RCU question
Message-ID: <20041212093714.GL16322@dualathlon.random>
References: <41BA0ECF.1060203@mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412101558240.24986@montezuma.fsmlabs.com> <41BA59F6.5010309@mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412101943260.1101@montezuma.fsmlabs.com> <41BA698E.8000603@mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412110751020.5214@montezuma.fsmlabs.com> <41BB2108.70606@colorfullife.com> <41BB25B2.90303@mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412111947280.7847@montezuma.fsmlabs.com> <41BC0854.4010503@colorfullife.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41BC0854.4010503@colorfullife.com>
X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49  C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43
X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC  C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 09:59:00AM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> It means that our NMI irq return path should check if it points to a hlt 
> instruction and if yes, then increase the saved EIP by one before doing 
> the iretd, right?

I don't think we'll ever post any event through nmi, so it doesn't
matter. We only care to be waken by real irqs, not nmi/smi. Idle loop is
fine to ignore the actions of the nmi handlers and to hang into the
"hlt".