[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5728BE1B.5010904@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:04:59 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
Cc: fu.wei@...aro.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, wim@...ana.be,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range
Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Most likely it will not be corrupted. But, if ISR has been called it
>> means
>> something went wrong, and watchdog was not kicked for the time
>> programmed as
>> "timeout". So, probably we should be extra careful.
>>
> This logic would apply to _every_ watchdog driver implementing interrupts.
> Actually, it would apply to _all_ kernel code, and the logic could be used
> to introduce hyper-defensive programming all over the place, bloat the
> kernel
> and ultimately make it all but unusable. I do not believe in such
> programming
> in an operating system kernel.
>
> On top of that, the assumption that the kernel would be still sane enough
> to call the interrupt handler, but not sane enough to actually execute it,
> seems to be a bit far-fetched.
Agreed. Pratyush, have you ever seen any watchdog register get
corrupted, like you describe? It just seems like you're imagining a
problem that has never occurred.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum, a Linux Foundation collaborative project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists