Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:02:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:02:04 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:39172 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:02:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:09:37 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] NMI notifiers for 2.5 Message-ID: <20021205070937.GA16766@wotan.suse.de> References: <1039027142.20387.11.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <1039038853.20387.19.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1039038853.20387.19.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1011 Lines: 25 On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:54:13PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > For a more comprehensive variant see include/asm-x86_64/kdebug.h > > The x86-64 variant cannot be 1:1 copied because it's still incomplete > > and e.g. does not implement veto for all places where it's needed. > > > > Didn't look in x86_64 code. Would it just make more sense to turn this > into an architecture independent mechanism and provide sample versions > for x86_64 and i386? Would seem like overkill to me. notifiers are already architecture independent, that should be enough. My experience so far is that one has to be very careful how to design such hooks and the first versions of it usually don't survive the actual implementation of an debugger or crash dumper. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/