[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 12:14:22 +0100
From: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: "linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>,
Justin Chen <justinpopo6@...il.com>,
Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>,
Naidu Tellapati <naidu.tellapati@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Stopping watchdog in watchdog driver remove functions
Hi Guenter,
> I noticed that several watchdog drivers stop the watchdog in trhe driver
> remove function.
> A non-exhaustive list of drivers doing that is
>
> drivers/watchdog/bcm7038_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/cadence_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/imgpdc_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/jz4740_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/kempld_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/max77620_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/moxart_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/sama5d4_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/tangox_wdt.c
> drivers/watchdog/tegra_wdt.c
>
> Since a watchdog has to be closed for its driver to be removable, one
> situation
> where a watchdog is still running on unload is where the watchdog was
> opened but
> not closed properly (eg by killing the watchdog application, or if the
> 'nowayout'
> flag is set).
>
> Given that, does it even make sense to stop the watchdog in the remove
> function ?
> Should it even be permitted ?
>From an API point of view: if WDIOF_MAGICCLOSE is being used then the watchdog
_SHOULD_ continue to run when the watchdog was not properly closed (which
normally also results in a reboot of the system).
if WDIOF_MAGICCLOSE is not being used then closing the watchdog device means
that the driver needs to stop the watchdog.
Kind regards and happy new year to you all,
Wim.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists