[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170526103103.31fd6801@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:31:03 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce arch_touch_nmi_watchdog()
On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:55:59 -0400
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:28:54PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
> > them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have
> > them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog().
> >
> > This gives the generic code more flexibility in implementing this
> > function, and arch implementations don't miss out on touching the
> > softlockup watchdog or other generic details.
>
> The idea makes sense. I don't think you can have hld_touch_nmi_watchdog
> defined with arch_touch_nmi_watchdog, so I am wondering if it makes sense to
> combine them somehow. Though renaming hld_touch_nmi_watchdog to
> arch_touch_nmi_watchdog sounds odd, I think it mimics the idea.
Yeah I agree it's not quite right, and I think using
arch_touch_nmi_watchdog would be fine for the hld, which makes sense
if you think of it as a utility or library function for architectures
that want a hardlockup watchdog and can use perf for it.
I can change that if you prefer. BTW the 0day picked up another
Kconfig compile bug, so I'll respin the series and include any changes
you like.
Thanks,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists