Re: [PATCH] allow drivers to claim the lapic NMI watchdog HW

[Albert Cahalan]

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 11:57, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> John Levon writes:
>  > On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:33:01AM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>  > 
>  > > +/* lapic_nmi_owner:
>  > > + * +1: the lapic NMI hardware is assigned to the lapic NMI watchdog
>  > > + *  0: the lapic NMI hardware is unassigned
>  > 
>  > If we're going to have a mini state machine, can't we at least use some
>  > defines for each state...
>  > 
>  > > +		lapic_nmi_owner -= 2; /* +1 -> -1, 0 -> -2 */
>  > 
>  > ...and make this into some readable english via a little helper?
> 
> Thing is, using discrete states makes the code for the checks
> and state changes more verbose. However, I can easily hide the
> representation behind macros with understandable names.

It looked like 2 flag bits to me.

#define LAPIC_WATCHDOG_WANTS_NMI   0x00000001
#define LAPIC_OTHER_DRIVER_HAS_NMI 0x00000002


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/