On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:25:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:14:14 -0400 Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > -static int watchdog_nmi_enable(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > > > -static void watchdog_nmi_disable(unsigned int cpu) { return; }
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * These two functions are mostly architecture specific
> > > > + * defining them as weak here.
> > > > + */
> > > > +int __weak arch_watchdog_nmi_enable(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > > > +void __weak arch_watchdog_nmi_disable(unsigned int cpu) { return; }
> > > > +
> > > > #endif /* CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR */
> > >
> > > This is a strange way of using __weak.
> > >
> > > Take a look at (one of many examples) kernel/module.c:module_alloc().
> > > We simply provide a default implementation and some other compilation
> > > unit can override (actually replace) that at link time. No strange
> > > ifdeffing needed.
> >
> > Yeah, this is mostly because of how we enable the hardlockup detector.
> >
> > Some arches use the perf hw and enable CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR. Other
> > arches just use their own variant of nmi and set CONFIG_HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG and
> > the rest of the arches do not use this.
> >
> > So the thought was if CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR use that implementation,
> > everyone else use the __weak version. Then the arches like sparc can override
> > the weak version with their own nmi enablement.
> >
> > I don't know how to represent those 3 states correctly and the above is what
> > we end up with.
>
> <head spins>
>
> Is there a suitable site where we could capture these considerations in
> a code comment?
Hi Andrew,
I am not sure I understand your question. When you say 'site', are you
referring to the kernel/watchdog.c file?
The other approach that might help de-clutter this file, is to pull out the
HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR changes (as they are arch specific) and move it to say
kernel/watchdog_hw_ld.c. Then all the nmi hooks in kernel/watchdog.c can be
__weak and overridden by the kernel_watchdog_hw_ld.c file or the sparc
files.
This would leave kernel/watchdog.c with just a framework and the
arch-agnostic softlockup detector. Probably easier to read and digest.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Don
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
