[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b59155c2-81c1-b2d8-c8d9-a97e3166cee3@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:17:40 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
"Peter.Enderborg@...y.com" <Peter.Enderborg@...y.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 17/21] watchdog/dev: Add tracepoints
On 2/17/22 09:49, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
>
>
> On 17/02/2022 18:27, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 2/17/22 08:27, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>>> Hi Peter
>>>
>>> On 2/16/22 17:01, Peter.Enderborg@...y.com wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/22 11:45, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>>>>> Add a set of tracepoints, enabling the observability of the watchdog
>>>>> device interactions with user-space.
>>>>>
>>>>> The events are:
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_open
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_close
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_start
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_stop
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_set_timeout
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_ping
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_nowayout
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_set_keep_alive
>>>>> watchdog:watchdog_keep_alive
>>>>
>>>> Some watchdogs have a bark functionality, I think it should be event
>>>> for that too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand. The problems is that I do not see the bark abstraction
>>> in the
>>> watchdog_dev layer.
>>>
>>
>> I don't even know what "bark functionality" means. A new term for
>> pretimeout ?
>> Something else ?
>
>>>From my understanding the bark timeout is actually the pretimeout
> whereas the bite timeout is the actual timeout.
> I think in the Kernel ftwdt010_wdt and qcom-wdt are bark/bite WTDs
>
If that is the case, I would prefer if we could stick to existing
terminology to avoid issues like "I do not see the bark abstraction".
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists