Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:09:26 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, eranian@hpl.hp.com, mingo@elte.hu,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, levon@movementarian.org,
       perfmon@napali.hpl.hp.com, oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net,
       wcohen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Always probe the NMI watchdog
Message-Id: <20070625120926.0a86373c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070620183448.GB3251@atjola.homenet>
References: <20070618103214.GA12045@atjola.homenet>
	<200706201431.44014.ak@suse.de>
	<20070620124959.GB24906@frankl.hpl.hp.com>
	<200706201501.02582.ak@suse.de>
	<20070620183315.GA3251@atjola.homenet>
	<20070620183448.GB3251@atjola.homenet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 833
Lines: 26

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
Bj__rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de> wrote:

> The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
> probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
> 

So...  what's the status of this lot?

I've just merged this patch and the second one:

Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Reserve the right performance counter for the Intel PerfMon NMI watchdog
Message-ID: <20070620183551.GC3251@atjola.homenet>

but there was no followup discussion afaict.

Andi, Stephane: acks?

If acked, do we agree that this is 2.6.22 material?

Thanks.
-
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/