linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] Watchdog: introduce "pretimeout" into framework

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]

Message-ID: <CADyBb7swfV9eQKC2FxiaK=RFq9JR8fmq1BcTeWOp57i_TrXaBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 22:38:32 +0800
From:	Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Timo Kokkonen <timo.kokkonen@...code.fi>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Wei Fu <tekkamanninja@...il.com>,
	G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, vgandhi@...eaurora.org,
	wim@...ana.be, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>, Jon Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] Watchdog: introduce "pretimeout" into framework

Hi Guenter.

Sorry for my poor English .
let me explain this :

On 22 May 2015 at 21:23, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 03:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote:
>>
>> Hi Timo,
>>
> [ ... ]
>
>> So I am still trying to improve pretimeout support :-)
>
>
> Is there anything still missing from it ?
>
>> If I can make pretimeout merged, may be you can try pretimeout to
>> implement early_timeout_sec function?
>
>
> Not sure how one would or even could do that.
>
> Do you mean "implement early_pretimeout_sec", by any chance ?

I mean: using pretimeout to implement the function you want, instead
of early_pretimeout_sec

Hope I say the right word this time :-)

>
>> It is up to the maintainers, I will try my best.
>>
>
> Please don't make the pretimeout concept more complicated than necessary.
>
> The smaller the patch, the more likely it is to get accepted.
> The more you change, the more difficult it is for the maintainer to,
> for example, back-port later bug fixes into earlier kernel releases
> when needed. This is why it is, for example, better to keep the
> existing watchdog_init_timeout() function instead of just replacing
> it with watchdog_init_timeouts().
>
> Try to put yourself into the maintainer's perspective: If you were
> the maintainer, would you rather accept a patch or patch set which
> maintains the existing API and doesn't require any changes to existing
> drivers, or would you accept one that changes, say, some function
> or variable names and will require manual back-ports later on if
> there is a bug fix ? Would you rather accept a patch that adds 50 lines
> of code, or one that changes another 100+ lines and rearranges everything
> along the line ?
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter
>



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch
Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct)
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021
--
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/