From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759588Ab0I0PU1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:20:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42532 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755783Ab0I0PU0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:20:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:20:14 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Robert Richter Cc: huang ying , Huang Ying , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 6/7] x86, NMI, Add support to notify hardware error with unknown NMI Message-ID: <20100927152014.GY26290@redhat.com> References: <1285549026-5008-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <1285549026-5008-6-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <20100927100901.GC32222@erda.amd.com> <20100927133816.GP13563@erda.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100927133816.GP13563@erda.amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 03:38:16PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 27.09.10 08:47:53, huang ying wrote: > > > I think explicit function calls have better readability than notifier chains. > > What is different to unknown_nmi() then? > > So no, in your case you want to catch unknown nmis for a certain > hardware and then throw a panic. This should be clearly implemented in > a separate handler for this piece of hardware. > > We want to cleanup this code and throw out all hardware specific > snippets, and not introduce new special cases here. I tend to agree with Robert here. I don't know if there were any 'rules' to which handlers get directly called versus ones that go through the die_chain, so I was originally going to let it go. But if they aren't any, it does look cleaner to have everything in die_chains. Cheers, Don