[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADyBb7vp+E_29zOW9Wq9oL8LbwgBFhM9VCRMNsYwFVGGXMwOTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 11:09:00 +0800
From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
To: 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>,
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,
Great thanks for your suggestion,
I have put this kind of validation into watchdog_pretimeout_invalid
and watchdog_timeout_invalid.
So :
(1)
set_timeout(10); ------> if this setting is successful
set_pretimeout(20); -----> return fail (-EINVAL)
(2)
set_timeout(10); ------> if this setting is successful
set_pretimeout(10); -----> return fail (-EINVAL)
this kind of situation will not result in an invalid / unexpected timeout value.
you will see this change in my next patchset
On 21 May 2015 at 23:32, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 04:32:34PM +0800, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
>> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
>>
>> Also update Documentation/watchdog/watchdog-kernel-api.txt to
>> introduce:
>> (1)the new elements in the watchdog_device and watchdog_ops struct;
>> (2)the new API "watchdog_init_timeouts".
>>
>> Reasons:
>> (1)kernel already has two watchdog drivers are using "pretimeout":
>> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_watchdog.c
>> drivers/watchdog/kempld_wdt.c(but the definition is different)
>> (2)some other dirvers are going to use this: ARM SBSA Generic Watchdog
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
>> ---
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>
>> +/* Use the following function to check if a pretimeout value is invalid */
>> +static inline bool watchdog_pretimeout_invalid(struct watchdog_device *wdd,
>> + unsigned int t)
>> +{
>> + return ((wdd->max_pretimeout != 0) &&
>> + (t < wdd->min_pretimeout || t > wdd->max_pretimeout));
>> +}
>
> Should this function also enforce "t < wdd->timeout", and
> should watchdog_timeout_invalid() enforce "t > wdd->pretimeout" ?
>
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists