Re: [PATCH -v2 6/7] x86, NMI, Add support to notify hardware errorwith unknown NMI

[Don Zickus]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 03:38:16PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 27.09.10 08:47:53, huang ying wrote:
> 
> > I think explicit function calls have better readability than notifier chains.
> 
> What is different to unknown_nmi() then?
> 
> So no, in your case you want to catch unknown nmis for a certain
> hardware and then throw a panic. This should be clearly implemented in
> a separate handler for this piece of hardware.
> 
> We want to cleanup this code and throw out all hardware specific
> snippets, and not introduce new special cases here.

I tend to agree with Robert here.  I don't know if there were any 'rules'
to which handlers get directly called versus ones that go through the
die_chain, so I was originally going to let it go.  But if they aren't
any, it does look cleaner to have everything in die_chains.

Cheers,
Don
--
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/