[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130201145934.GQ98867@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:59:35 -0500
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: anish kumar <anish198519851985@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org,
chuansheng.liu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [Watchdog][Trivial] Added comments to explain
watchdog_disabled variable
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 07:19:07PM +0530, anish kumar wrote:
> From: anish kumar <anish198519851985@...il.com>
>
> This watchdog_disabled flag is bit of cryptic.Howerver it's usefullnes is multifold.
> Uses are:
> 1. Check if smpboot_register_percpu_thread function passed.
> 2. Makes sure that user enables and disables the watchdog in sequence
> i.e. enable watchdog->disable watchdog->enable watchdog
> Unlike enable watchdog->enable watchdog which is wrong.
>
> Signed-off-by: anish kumar <anish198519851985@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/watchdog.c | 5 +++++
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index 6ef638b..dfd843a 100644
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -519,6 +519,11 @@ int proc_dowatchdog(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> return ret;
>
> set_sample_period();
> + /*
> + * We shouldn't enable watchdog threads if it is not
^^^
the 'not' is not needed I believe. Other than that, if it helps
to understand the code better. I am fine with it.
Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
> + * disabled.This is done by watchdog_disabled
> + * variable check in watchdog_*_all_cpus function.
> + */
> if (watchdog_enabled && watchdog_thresh)
> watchdog_enable_all_cpus();
> else
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists