On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:26:49 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:41:41PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:57:32 -0700
> > > Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calde...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Instead of exposing individual functions for the operations of the NMI
> > > > watchdog, define a common interface that can be used across multiple
> > > > implementations.
> > > >
> > > > The struct nmi_watchdog_ops is defined for such operations. These
> > > > initial
> > > > definitions include the enable, disable, start, stop, and cleanup
> > > > operations.
> > > >
> > > > Only a single NMI watchdog can be used in the system. The operations of
> > > > this NMI watchdog are accessed via the new variable nmi_wd_ops. This
> > > > variable is set to point the operations of the first NMI watchdog that
> > > > initializes successfully. Even though at this moment, the only available
> > > > NMI watchdog is the perf-based hardlockup detector. More implementations
> > > > can be added in the future.
> > >
> > > Cool, this looks pretty nice at a quick glance. sparc and powerpc at
> > > least have their own NMI watchdogs, it would be good to have those
> > > converted as well.
> > Yeah, agreed, this looks like half a patch.
> Though I'm not seeing the advantage of it. That kind of NMI watchdogs are
> low level architecture details so having yet another 'ops' data structure
> with a gazillion of callbacks, checks and indirections does not provide
> value over the currently available weak stubs.
The other way to go of course is librify the perf watchdog and make an
x86 watchdog that selects between perf and hpet... I also probably
prefer that for code such as this, but I wouldn't strongly object to
ops struct if I'm not writing the code. It's not that bad is it?
iommu mailing list