[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190615100230.GA10480@www.linux-watchdog.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:02:30 +0200
From: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Esben Haabendal <esben@...bendal.dk>,
Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <Rasmus.Villemoes@...vas.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] watchdog: make the device time out at
open_deadline when open_timeout is used
Hi Rasmus,
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:06:44PM +0000, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> When the watchdog device is not open by userspace, the kernel takes
> >> care of pinging it. When the open_timeout feature is in use, we should
> >> ensure that the hardware fires close to open_timeout seconds after the
> >> kernel has assumed responsibility for the device.
> >>
> >> To do this, simply reuse the logic that is already in place for
> >> ensuring the same thing when userspace is responsible for regularly
> >> pinging the device:
> >>
> >> - When watchdog_active(wdd), this patch doesn't change anything.
> >>
> >> - When !watchdoc_active(wdd), the "virtual timeout" should be taken to
> >
> > s/watchdoc_active/watchdog_active/
> >
> > otherwise
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>
> Thanks! Wim, can you fix up if/when applying, or do you prefer I resend?
I'll fix up when applying. No need to resend a new patch for that.
Kind regards,
Wim.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists