tip/x86/nmi nmi-32/64.c merge v3
cover tip/x86/nmi nmi-32/64.c merge v3
This series tries to merge down nmi_32/64.c to nmi.c. It is done by small steps in hope it would help to bisect problems (which will appear anyway ;) Please review *carefully* since it is NMI what I've touched (and I'm not nmi specialist). So I really apreciate _ANY_ comments on this. The series is produced over today 'tip' tree branch 'x86/nmi'.
- Cyrill -
Quoted 5 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
This series tries to merge down nmi_32/64.c to
nmi.c. It is done by small steps in hope it would help to bisect problems (which will appear anyway ;) Please review *carefully* since it is NMI what I've touched (and I'm not nmi specialist). So I really apreciate _ANY_ comments on this. The series is produced over today 'tip' tree branch 'x86/nmi'.
Cyrill,
very good job. I did a short review and found no obvious problems yet. Will have a closer look when I apply it.
Thanks,
tglx
[Thomas Gleixner - Sun, May 25, 2008 at 06:44:28PM +0200]
| On Sat, 24 May 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | | > This series tries to merge down nmi_32/64.c to nmi.c. It is done by small | > steps in hope it would help to bisect problems (which will appear anyway ;) | > Please review *carefully* since it is NMI what I've touched (and I'm not | > nmi specialist). So I really apreciate _ANY_ comments on this. The series | > is produced over today 'tip' tree branch 'x86/nmi'. | | Cyrill, | | very good job. I did a short review and found no obvious problems | yet. Will have a closer look when I apply it. | | Thanks, | tglx | | |
thanks Thomas, unfortunelly I think the problems will arise soon, I've just noticed the commit
commit 57b2b8947a5f68e59d5f50ab749efdc79d9ba040
Author: Mike Travis <[email protected]> Date: Mon May 12 21:21:12 2008 +0200
x86: fix remove cpu_pda table patch
in tip/testing tree
so we will need some workaround for check_nmi_watchdog() 'cause of changing
...
- prev_nmi_count = kmalloc(NR_CPUS * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
+ prev_nmi_count = kmalloc(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
...
- for (cpu = 0; cpu < NR_CPUS; cpu++)
+ for (cpu = 0; cpu < nr_cpu_ids; cpu++)
...
didn't take a precise look on this, but will take as only be able to ;)
- Cyrill -
Quoted 34 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
[Thomas Gleixner - Sun, May 25, 2008 at 06:44:28PM +0200]
| On Sat, 24 May 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | | > This series tries to merge down nmi_32/64.c to nmi.c. It is done by small | > steps in hope it would help to bisect problems (which will appear anyway ;) | > Please review *carefully* since it is NMI what I've touched (and I'm not | > nmi specialist). So I really apreciate _ANY_ comments on this. The series | > is produced over today 'tip' tree branch 'x86/nmi'. | | Cyrill, | | very good job. I did a short review and found no obvious problems | yet. Will have a closer look when I apply it. | | Thanks, | tglx | | |thanks Thomas, unfortunelly I think the problems will arise soon, I've just noticed the commit
commit
57b2b8947a5f68e59d5f50ab749efdc79d9ba040Author: Mike Travis <[email protected]> Date: Mon May 12 21:21:12 2008 +0200x86: fix remove
cpu_pdatable patchin tip/testing tree
so we will need some workaround for
check_nmi_watchdog()'cause of changing...
Review
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +1
-1- prev_nmi_count = kmalloc(NR_CPUS * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL); + prev_nmi_count = kmalloc(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
Nothing to worry for you. Your patch applies fine on the x86/nmi branch and the merge conflict is easy to resolve.
Thanks for noticing.
tglx