Keith Owens wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:53:40 +0100 (CET), > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >it sure has an alternative. The 'cpus spinning' code calls touch_nmi() > >within the busy loop, the polling code on the control CPU too. This is > >sure more robust and catches lockup bugs in kdb too ... > > Works for me. It even makes kdb simpler. humm... OK, this seems doable in the case of serial console. For CONFIG_LP_CONSOLE (which has the same problem) it looks like we can just call touch_nmi() in lp_console_write(). I'll see what Tim has to say. - - 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/
- [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog Andrew Morton
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog Ion Badulescu
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog Andrew Morton
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog Robert Read
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog Ingo Molnar
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog Keith Owens
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog Ingo Molnar
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdo... Keith Owens
- [patch] nmi-watchdog-2.4.2-A1 Andrew Morton
- [patch] nmi-watchdog-2.4.2-A1 Ingo Molnar
- Re: [patch] nmi-watchdog-2.4.2-A... Andrew Morton
- [patch] nmi-watchdog-2.4.2-A... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdog george anzinger
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI watchdo... Keith Owens
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NMI wa... george anzinger
- Re: [patch] serial console vs NM... Keith Owens