>
I am not sure of the safety about using pid here with namespace.
But as to the pointer of process, is there a chance that we got a 'historical'
address saved in the 'softlockup_warn_pid(or address)_saved' and the current
hogging process happened to get the same task pointe
On 08/19/2014 09:36 AM, Chai Wen wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 04:38 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Don Zickus wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> So I agree with the motivation of this imp
e.o i8259.o irq.o lapic.o i8254.o timer.o \
cpuid.o pmu.o
obj-m := kvm.o
# for kvm_intel & kvm_amd modules
kvm_intel-y += vmx.o
kvm_amd-y += svm.o
obj-m += kvm_intel.o
obj-m += kvm_amd.o
clean:
@-rm -f *.o
@-rm -f *mod*
@-rm -f *.ko
thanks
chai wen
