From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D53080B for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 05:46:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743486373; cv=none; b=l56Io0tlPMTzhe6A1whZOT1O5SX9Vl3FjxtOZW86vr9K21HcMal77HMa5mTaBzwKb0D4fULuWolw/uGrhYDUtqyeOPIGStytb1AdYaYAKnx6kYrHdwJE1tNwKMmWaJc8m7nyGhGO4DbjAjhts6QJLt3RUcmupI1UAjAO5muDIxY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743486373; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UO6J4lXlIL+xQ8vawMaEoX/yxhn4Vj44S9MBhDMToH4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=r8E8WJzszxzRxclrnrLtvcI9MaF4/vcvhYxDgZ8lJizic0suW9haVlqvS8w7cobxZ5prKAFG7QQHBk/k+oao7OE40ifmpoDecInwB2mvvjzRNY2yDonA2TJHgiWmeJzsrJFK5LHlpc03JvHILTloRRmwBjMn4McavgZfX4eMj20= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=P9hSYgpx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="P9hSYgpx" Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([76.133.66.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 5315jhoc3583643 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:45:43 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 5315jhoc3583643 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2025032001; t=1743486345; bh=JaR/7JLHc8AQjclGF7cvNDo49+pIVaq/eIbhSbpniKo=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=P9hSYgpxE4qVpESXuwSH3VSNUK6p44vf+8ihs6AHvjG05nl73nvfF36jD0dGjJ7Yp mhBVvdSXNOdPZtNF0NZi027nQKaSXwIpPiVXtLpirnS469zHgfM4wyFLewTAX+oXQO zLLGp6Ap7EE0PjGiTAkYLNh4qkK7LVMpPDYY/mmx0FT3eLONU+AghwqivWMY9jommB V5aMBn+Uihg1N88yT79Ph/VYIoYNTzhpxpYmFaeSqUTPOIOvi54xX9UdUUmWNE+nR5 Kv7Ai3A8F8zf+XniQMPQjCG/mXxcTSeKM5g4s4GRYLrIrJUBxVoVMAykkD3kcmQDg3 sSSKTRX94uxIg== Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:45:41 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" To: "Huang, Kai" , "Mehta, Sohil" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "x86@kernel.org" CC: "Nikula, Jani" , "bp@alien8.de" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" , "rppt@kernel.org" , "bigeasy@linutronix.de" , "jpoimboe@kernel.org" , "pmladek@suse.com" , "xin@zytor.com" , "Luck, Tony" Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] x86/nmi: Fix comment in unknown NMI handling User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <4e7937e946d94d5f62ff1a5f3b416f7d1eb2c71f.camel@intel.com> References: <20250327234629.3953536-1-sohil.mehta@intel.com> <20250327234629.3953536-6-sohil.mehta@intel.com> <4e7937e946d94d5f62ff1a5f3b416f7d1eb2c71f.camel@intel.com> Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On March 31, 2025 5:17:55 PM PDT, "Huang, Kai" wr= ote: >On Thu, 2025-03-27 at 23:46 +0000, Mehta, Sohil wrote: >> The comment in unknown NMI handling is incorrect and misleading=2E Ther= e >> is no longer a restriction on having a single Unknown NMI handler=2E Al= so, >> nmi_handle() does not use the 'b2b' parameter anymore=2E >>=20 >> The changes that made the comment outdated are: >>=20 >> commit 0d443b70cc92 ("x86/platform: Remove warning message for duplicat= e >> NMI handlers") >>=20 >> commit bf9f2ee28d47 ("x86/nmi: Remove the 'b2b' parameter from >> nmi_handle()") > >After some digging, IIUC, the 'b2b' parameter of the nmi_handle() was act= ually >never used when it was originally added in the=20 > > commit b227e23399dc ("x86, nmi: Add in logic to handle multiple events = and >unknown NMIs") > >=2E=2E, so IIUC the comment was wrong when it was firstly added=2E =C2=A0 > >The above commit to remove the 'b2b' seems just a fixup patch but it didn= 't fix >the comment=2E > >Not sure whether it is worth to mention in the changelog=2E > >>=20 >> Remove the old comment and update it to reflect the current intention= =2E >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Sohil Mehta >>=20 > >Anyway: > >Reviewed-by: Kai Huang > Ha! Any idea what it was *supposed* to do? I'm guessing it stood for "back= to back" or some such?