Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754624Ab1FLWjC (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:39:02 -0400 Received: from s15228384.onlinehome-server.info ([87.106.30.177]:57543 "EHLO mail.x86-64.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754218Ab1FLWi7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:38:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:38:40 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Huang, Ying" , Hidetoshi Seto , Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] NOTIFIER: Take over TIF_MCE_NOTIFY and implement task return notifier Message-ID: <20110612223840.GA23218@aftab> References: <4df13a522720782e51@agluck-desktop.sc.intel.com> <4df13cea27302b7ccf@agluck-desktop.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4df13cea27302b7ccf@agluck-desktop.sc.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 944 Lines: 28 On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Luck, Tony wrote: > From: Tony Luck > > Existing user return notifier mechanism is designed to catch a specific > cpu just as it returns to run any task in user mode. We also need a > machanism to catch a specific task. Why do we need that? I mean, in the remaining patches we end up either running memory_failure() or sending signals to a task. Can't we do it all in the user return notifier and not have a different notifier for each policy? Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551 -- 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/