From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759016Ab1F1Qnz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:43:55 -0400
Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]:39307 "EHLO
	mail-fx0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1758591Ab1F1QmY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:42:24 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:18 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Add hw_watchdog_set_attr() in a sake of
 nmi-watchdog on P4
Message-ID: <20110628164218.GK1159@sun>
References: <20110627190358.GQ3765@redhat.com>
 <20110627193201.GB1159@sun>
 <CABPqkBTE_6ma70ZQbbz1NnznCGB7YO74kmL+=fP66qFVvVFLBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110628152827.GE1159@sun>
 <20110628153731.GY3765@redhat.com>
 <20110628154422.GG1159@sun>
 <20110628154646.GH1159@sun>
 <CABPqkBS4ukQ-asVD68MR_Bb_E89+EcHOcMP3Vv=RMJ9RnuYBSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110628161110.GJ1159@sun>
 <20110628162714.GV7027@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110628162714.GV7027@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27:14PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:11:10PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > 
> >  	wd_attr->sample_period = hw_nmi_get_sample_period(watchdog_thresh);
> > -->	hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr(wd_attr);
> > 
> > itself? Ie you suspect some different point where to call it?
> > 
> > When I said not a "best place" I meant about __weak function bare implementation
> > placed that near to call (which is looked somehow suspicious for me from overall
> > code structure), but I didn't mean the call sequence itself ;)
> 
> Sorry I was probably vague.  What I meant to say is that the call
> 'hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr' is really x86 specific and thought we could
> bury it down there somehow.  Yeah the __weak symbol cleverly gets around
> it.
> 
> I was thinking it would be nice to stick it in hw_nmi_get_sample_period as
> that is arch specific.  But it really wouldn't make sense there.
> 
> It's probably fine for now and maybe someday we can come up with a better
> idea where to put it.

OK, clear enough, lets stick with other issues. Thanks!

> 
> I don't want to waste to much time thinking about it as I have other
> issues I am dealing with.  I just wanted to get this resolved so I can
> push this patch into RHEL-6.
> 
> Cheers,
> Don

	Cyrill