linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] watchdog: Introduce WDOG

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: <55C0E0A1.4060601@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:56:17 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC:	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Timo Kokkonen <timo.kokkonen@...code.fi>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] watchdog: Introduce WDOG_RUNNING flag

Hi Uwe,

On 08/04/2015 08:41 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 07:13:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> The WDOG_RUNNING flag is expected to be set by watchdog drivers if
>> the hardware watchdog is running. If the flag is set, the watchdog
>> subsystem will ping the watchdog even if the watchdog device is closed.
>>
>> The watchdog driver stop function is now optional and may be omitted
>> if the watchdog can not be stopped. If stopping the watchdog is not
>> possible but the driver implements a stop function, it is responsible
>> to set the WDOG_RUNNING flag in its stop function.
>>
>> Cc: Timo Kokkonen <timo.kokkonen@...code.fi>
>> Cc: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/watchdog/watchdog-kernel-api.txt | 19 ++++++++-----
>>   drivers/watchdog/watchdog_core.c               |  2 +-
>>   drivers/watchdog/watchdog_dev.c                | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++------
>>   include/linux/watchdog.h                       |  7 +++++
>>   4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> Another thing that I noticed just now after looking at a later patch in
> this series: Conceptually that worker stuff better fits into
> watchdog_core.c than watchdog_dev.c, doesn't it? But maybe this
> separation doesn't make sense anyhow?
>

I actually started with that approach.

Problem is that the functionality added by the patch set is to a large degree
associated with code in watchdog_dev.c. I would have to export static functions
from watchdog_dev.c (such as _watchdog_ping), and I would have to export some
of the worker functions (such as watchdog_update_worker) if the code would be
in watchdog_core.c.

On the other side, when adding the code to watchdog_dev.c, I did not have to
export any functions. So adding the code there seemed to make more sense to me.

Thanks,
Guenter

--
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/