[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=U8CTttqz9jL6TockdKTd1dM1ApR4Nw+X3OF5tgoagfRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 16:37:10 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] watchdog/hardlockup: Define HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:26 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> @@ -1102,6 +1103,14 @@ config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY
> depends on !HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
> select HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_COUNTS_HRTIMER
>
> +config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
> + bool
> + depends on HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> + depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
> + help
> + The arch-specific implementation of the hardlockup detector is
> + available.
nit: "is available" makes it sound a bit too much like a "have"
version. Maybe "The arch-specific implementation of the hardlockup
detector will be used" or something like that?
Otherise:
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists