linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: ep93xx_wdt: cleanup and let the core handle the heartbeat

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: <SN1PR0101MB1565196AC721B7FD3247E581D04B0@SN1PR0101MB1565.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:09:55 +0000
From:   Hartley Sweeten <HartleyS@...ionengravers.com>
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>,
        "Wim Van Sebroeck" <wim@...ana.be>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: ep93xx_wdt: cleanup and let the core handle
 the heartbeat

On Monday, January 30, 2017 11:55 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:55:47AM -0700, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> Cleanup this driver and remove the 200ms heartbeat timer. The core now
>> has the ability to handle the heartbeat.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>
>> Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
>> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>

Hi Guenter,

I wasn't sure this patch was going to get delivered correctly. I got an "Undeliverable"
bounce due to possible spoofing. I am trying to figure out why right now.

Anyway...

<snip>

>> -#define WDT_VERSION	"0.4"
>> -
>> -/* default timeout (secs) */
>> -#define WDT_TIMEOUT 30
>> -
>
> Personally I like those constants, even if used only once (I know, it is a good
> candidate for bikeshedding). Two reasons: 1) It is already there, and 2) It
> helps seeing the default without having to dig into the code.

I assume the WDT_VERSION can go away...

As far as the WDT_TIMEOUT, I have no problem leaving it. I was just trying to remove
some cruft.

>>  static bool nowayout = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT;
>>  module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);
>>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout, "Watchdog cannot be stopped once started");
>>  
>> -static unsigned int timeout = WDT_TIMEOUT;
>> -module_param(timeout, uint, 0);
>> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(timeout,
>> -	"Watchdog timeout in seconds. (1<=timeout<=3600, default="
>> -				__MODULE_STRING(WDT_TIMEOUT) ")");
>> -
>
> Are you sure you want to take away the means to set the timeout with
> a module parameter ? You could easily retain the module parameter
> and call watchdog_init_timeout(wdd, timeout, dev). The parameter should
> then be initialized with 0, though, to have the watchdog core take the
> timeout from devicetree if provided.

Again, I have no problem leaving this. I personally don't use it but someone else
might. I'm not sure if the ep93xx will ever get converted to devicetree but I
might figure it one eventually.

<snip>

>> +	watchdog_set_drvdata(wdd, priv);
>>  
>> -	setup_timer(&timer, ep93xx_wdt_timer_ping, 1);
>> +	ret = watchdog_register_device(wdd);
>
> Looks like a perfect candidate for devm_watchdog_register_device().

I just saw your patches that do this. I will update this patch to use it.

Thanks,
Hartley