linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] watchdog: WatchDog Timer Driver Core

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20110712102410.2ba3834f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:24:10 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Watchdog Mailing List <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] watchdog: WatchDog Timer Driver Core - Add basic
 framework

> > +	/* stop the watchdog */
> > +	err = wdd->ops->stop(wdd);
> Does it really make sense to allow stop() to fail? Will this ever happen, and
> if yes do we gain anything by sending a additional ping?

It gives user space more time to react - or would do if the err was
propogated.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/