There apparently was an unnoticed conflict between your patch (committed
as 23d5ea5d3edcfe899cd91fca87a4af799bcc5794 2.6.23) and mine
(d1e084746b0e5806e6345ab31c5b370f8dee2b23), which I noticed only now.
I suppose a change like the one below (untested) is needed; before officially
submitting I'd like to confirm this with you.
The issue is the writing of the 'checkbit' member at the end of
setup_intel_arch_watchdog(), which my patch made go to intel_arch_wd_ops
rather than wd_ops.
Jan
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perfctr-watchdog.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perfctr-watchdog.c
@@ -615,16 +615,6 @@ static struct wd_ops intel_arch_wd_ops _
.evntsel = MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL1,
};
-static struct wd_ops coreduo_wd_ops = {
- .reserve = single_msr_reserve,
- .unreserve = single_msr_unreserve,
- .setup = setup_intel_arch_watchdog,
- .rearm = p6_rearm,
- .stop = single_msr_stop_watchdog,
- .perfctr = MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0,
- .evntsel = MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0,
-};
-
static void probe_nmi_watchdog(void)
{
switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor) {
@@ -638,8 +628,8 @@ static void probe_nmi_watchdog(void)
/* Work around Core Duo (Yonah) errata AE49 where perfctr1
doesn't have a working enable bit. */
if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 6 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model == 14) {
- wd_ops = &coreduo_wd_ops;
- break;
+ intel_arch_wd_ops.perfctr = MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0;
+ intel_arch_wd_ops.evntsel = MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0;
}
if (cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_PERFMON)) {
wd_ops = &intel_arch_wd_ops;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
