linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 3 May 2016 10:07:48 -0500
From:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To:	Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	fu.wei@...aro.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, wim@...ana.be,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range

Pratyush Anand wrote:
> In fact after supporting max_hw_heartbeat_ms, there should be no change for
> action=0 functionally. However, we would still need some changes for action=1.

IMHO, action=1 is more of a debugging option, and not something that 
would be used normally.  I would need to see some evidence that real 
users want to have action=1 and a longer timeout.

I've never been a fan of the action=1 option, and I'm certainly not keen 
any patches that make action=1 more complicated than it already is.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum, a Linux Foundation collaborative project.