linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] watchdog: atmel: atmel-sama5d4-wdt: Disable watchdog on system suspend

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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:08:26 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Ken Sloat <KSloat@...pglobal.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com" <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        "ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com" <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>,
        "wim@...ux-watchdog.org" <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] watchdog: atmel: atmel-sama5d4-wdt: Disable
 watchdog on system suspend

On 14/06/2019 17:53:01+0000, Ken Sloat wrote:
> > The call to sama5d4_wdt_init() above now explicitly stops the watchdog
> > even if we want to (re)start it. I think this would be better handled with an
> > else case here
> > 
> >         else
> >                 sama5d4_wdt_stop(&wdt->wdd);
> > 
> 
> So we completely remove the sama5d4_wdt_init() call then correct?
> 
> To leave the code as it behaves today with the addition
> of wdt stop/start, shouldn't we call init in the else instead?
> 
> 	if (watchdog_active(&wdt->wdd))
> 		sama5d4_wdt_start(&wdt->wdd);
> 	else
> 		sama5d4_wdt_init();
> 
> I guess I don't really understand the purpose of having the init statement in resume
> in the first place. I agree, calling this first does end up essentially resetting the wdt
> it will start again if it was running before, but the count will be reset.
> 

There is a nice comment explaining why ;)


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com