On 19/11/2020 16:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 19.11.2020 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 19/11/2020 15:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Found by looking for patterns similar to the one Julien did spot in >>> pci_vtd_quirks(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> Subject is wonky. Is it P4 (Intel), or Fam15 (AMD) ? I'd be tempted to >> have the prefix as x86/nmi: either way. > With this code: > > case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: > switch (boot_cpu_data.x86) { > case 6: > setup_p6_watchdog((boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 14) > ? P6_EVENT_CPU_CLOCKS_NOT_HALTED > : CORE_EVENT_CPU_CLOCKS_NOT_HALTED); > break; > case 15: > if (!setup_p4_watchdog()) > > I think qualifying it like I did is quite reasonable. Hence ... > >> With that suitably adjusted, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper >> <[email protected]> > ... I'd prefer to keep it as is - please clarify.
Oh - original Xeon's. I'd honestly forgotten that quirk of history. I'd recommend "x86/nmi: Avoid UB in for P4-era watchdogs" to avoid the ambiguity altogether. ~Andrew
