Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-19 Thread Corey Minyard
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 02:21:24PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:49:15 -0600 > Corey Minyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So I see the following options besides what's already there: > > > > 1) add asm/kdebug.h and DIE_NMI_POST to everything that might have an > > IPMI

Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-15 Thread Corey Minyard
Andrew Morton wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:49:15 -0600 Corey Minyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So I see the following options besides what's already there: 1) add asm/kdebug.h and DIE_NMI_POST to everything that might have an IPMI implementation. 2) use CONFIG_X86 to tell if NMI will wor

Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:49:15 -0600 Corey Minyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I see the following options besides what's already there: > > 1) add asm/kdebug.h and DIE_NMI_POST to everything that might have an > IPMI implementation. > 2) use CONFIG_X86 to tell if NMI will work, since that's t

Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-15 Thread Corey Minyard
Andrew Morton wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:05:56 +1100 Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Morton writes: This is all fairly unpleasant. What architecture is preventing us from using DIE_NMI_POST on all architectures which support ipmi? ia64? It would be better to sim

Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-14 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:05:56 +1100 Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton writes: > > > This is all fairly unpleasant. > > > > What architecture is preventing us from using DIE_NMI_POST on all > > architectures which support ipmi? ia64? > > > > It would be better to simply r

Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-14 Thread Paul Mackerras
Andrew Morton writes: > This is all fairly unpleasant. > > What architecture is preventing us from using DIE_NMI_POST on all > architectures which support ipmi? ia64? > > It would be better to simply require that all ipmi-using architectures > implement notify_die(DIE_NMI_POST, ...). We're sta

Re: [patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-14 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:12:57 -0600 Corey Minyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Convert over to the new NMI handling for getting IPMI watchdog > timeouts via an NMI. This add config options to know if there > is the ability to receive NMIs and if it has an NMI post processing > call. Then it mo

[patch 4/4] ipmi: add new IPMI nmi watchdog handling

2007-02-14 Thread Corey Minyard
Convert over to the new NMI handling for getting IPMI watchdog timeouts via an NMI. This add config options to know if there is the ability to receive NMIs and if it has an NMI post processing call. Then it modifies the IPMI watchdog to take advantage of this so that it can know if an NMI comes