[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5561E7EA.5090702@codeaurora.org>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:02:02 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: 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>,
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 6/7] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver
Fu Wei wrote:
> If pretimeout concept assumes that there are two timers, I
> misunderstand the "pretimeout", then I will delete the pretimeout
> immediately.
In my opinion, calling panic() on a pre-timeout is not useful, because
that's really just a normal timeout. If there were a way to "warn" user
space that a timeout is about to occur, without a panic or reset, then
that might be useful. But as far as I can see, all you're doing is
redefining the word "timeout".
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
--
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