----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Metcalf" <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> [...] > On 04/22/2015 04:20 AM, Ulrich Obergfell wrote: >> Chris, >> >> in principle the change looks o.k. to me, even though I'm not really familiar >> with the watchdog_nmi_disable_all() and watchdog_nmi_enable_all() functions. >> It is my understanding that those functions are only called once via 'initcall' >> early during kernel startup as shown in the following flow of execution: >> >> [...] >> It seems crucial that lockup_detector_init() is executed before fixup_ht_bug(). > > Uli, thanks for doing the follow-up analysis. I didn't know > about the fixup_ht_bug() path, but as you show, it seems to be OK. > > We could think about doing some kind of additional paranoia here, > like a wrapper around &watchdog_cpumask that checks some additional > boolean that says whether it's been properly initialized or not. > > But I think it's probably OK to leave it as-is; we already had the > potential of issues if any watchdog code was invoked prior to > init_watchdog(), for example due to the sample period being unset. > > What do you think? Chris, I also think it's probably OK to leave it as-is, in particular because you indicated in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=143016646903545&w=2 that you are going to make watchdog_cpumask static instead of allocating it dynamically. Regards, Uli -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
