Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765671AbXEYVFn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 17:05:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758732AbXEYVFI (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 17:05:08 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:55164 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758183AbXEYVFG (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 17:05:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 23:05:04 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Daniel Walker Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, andi@firstfloor.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] non-string based tsc unstable reasons Message-ID: <20070525210504.GD24083@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20070525193209.607200255@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070525193209.607200255@mvista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 864 Lines: 19 On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 12:32:10PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > Just passing a string to mark_tsc_unstable() doesn't allow real code to change > based on the reason for the instablility. I changed mark_tsc_unstable() > to accept a string and a flag which denotes a general reason why the tsc > is unstable, and can be evaluated in code. > I still think that's the wrong way to do this. If there is any special action that should be done on particular unstable events it should call a separate function or an addon function. First putting it all together and then try to distingush it again doesn't seem nice. -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/