Messages in this thread |  | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Mon, 2 Oct 2017 12:04:17 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC GIT Pull] core watchdog sanitizing |
| |
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > I agree that adding that 'run' argument was certainly not a piece of > art. Though I disagree with the sentiment that non-functional garbage is > preferrable over functionally correct code which merily contains a bad > implementation choice.
I agree that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I also find it really hard to vet code where my initial reaction is just "this is too ugly".
So it may be superficial, but ..
> Enough vented. Find below the cure for that major offense.
Looks much better to me. Thanks.
Side note: would it perhaps make sense to have that cpus_read_lock/unlock() sequence around the whole reconfiguration section?
Because while looking at that sequence, it looks a bit odd to me that cpu's can come and go in the middle of the nmi watchdog reconfiguration sequence.
In particular, what happens if a new CPU is brought up just as the NMI matchdog is being reconfigured? The NMI's have been stopped for the old CPU's, what happens for the new one that came up in between that watchdog_nmi_stop/start?
This may be all obviously safe, I'm just asking for clarification.
Linus
|  |