[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170522190751.5bf5e813@alans-desktop>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 19:07:51 +0100
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc: <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
<esben.haabendal@...il.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] watchdog: allow setting deadline for opening
/dev/watchdogN
On Mon, 22 May 2017 16:06:36 +0200
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk> wrote:
> If a watchdog driver tells the framework that the device is running,
> the framework takes care of feeding the watchdog until userspace opens
> the device. If the userspace application which is supposed to do that
> never comes up properly, the watchdog is fed indefinitely by the
> kernel. This can be especially problematic for embedded devices.
>
> These patches allow one to set a maximum time for which the kernel
> will feed the watchdog, thus ensuring that either userspace has come
> up, or the board gets reset. This allows fallback logic in the
> bootloader to attempt some recovery (for example, if an automatic
> update is in progress, it could roll back to the previous version).
This makes sense except for being a CONFIG_ option not a boot parameter.
If it's a boot parameter then the same kernel works for multiple systems
and is general. If it's compile time then you have to build a custom
kernel.
For some embedded stuff that might not matter (although I bet they'd
prefer it command line/device tree too) but for something like an x86
platform where you are deploying a standard vendor supplied kernel it's
bad to do it that way IMHO.
In other words I think you should drop patch 3 but the rest is good.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists