On 13.05.2014 21:41, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:14:32PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
Use CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_NMI to isolate NMI error notification path. NMI related data and functions are grouped so they can be wrapped inside one
I have missed end of sentence. I should goes like that:
Use CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_NMI to isolate NMI error notification path. NMI related data and functions are grouped so they can be wrapped inside one #ifdefs CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_NMI.
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org
drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c index ca8387e..7a0d66e 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c @@ -53,7 +53,9 @@ #include <asm/mce.h> #endif #include <asm/tlbflush.h> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_NMI #include <asm/nmi.h> +#endif
This, again, can be avoided with adding arch-specific versions and empty default stubs.
I had that thoughts too. Looking at simple MCE calls, yes, it does make sense to create corresponding arch-specific version and provide logic as needed. I think that NMI is much more complicated. NMI context is tightly coupled with the rest of GHES mechanisms like pool memory, list locks etc. which are GHES locally available. I am not saying it is impossible, I am just concerned if it makes sense to create e.g. apei-nmi.c arch-specific file and export necessary GHES mechanisms just for NMI purpose. Please let me know your opinion on this.
Regards, Tomasz