From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757969Ab1F1Q3K (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:29:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5730 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758539Ab1F1Q1X (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:27:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:27:14 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Stephane Eranian , Ingo Molnar , Lin Ming , Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Frederic Weisbecker , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Add hw_watchdog_set_attr() in a sake of nmi-watchdog on P4 Message-ID: <20110628162714.GV7027@redhat.com> References: <20110623124918.GC13050@sun> <20110627190358.GQ3765@redhat.com> <20110627193201.GB1159@sun> <20110628152827.GE1159@sun> <20110628153731.GY3765@redhat.com> <20110628154422.GG1159@sun> <20110628154646.GH1159@sun> <20110628161110.GJ1159@sun> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110628161110.GJ1159@sun> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:11:10PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > wd_attr->sample_period = hw_nmi_get_sample_period(watchdog_thresh); > --> hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr(wd_attr); > > itself? Ie you suspect some different point where to call it? > > When I said not a "best place" I meant about __weak function bare implementation > placed that near to call (which is looked somehow suspicious for me from overall > code structure), but I didn't mean the call sequence itself ;) Sorry I was probably vague. What I meant to say is that the call 'hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr' is really x86 specific and thought we could bury it down there somehow. Yeah the __weak symbol cleverly gets around it. I was thinking it would be nice to stick it in hw_nmi_get_sample_period as that is arch specific. But it really wouldn't make sense there. It's probably fine for now and maybe someday we can come up with a better idea where to put it. I don't want to waste to much time thinking about it as I have other issues I am dealing with. I just wanted to get this resolved so I can push this patch into RHEL-6. Cheers, Don