Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:28:49 -0400 | From | Don Zickus <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/8] [watchdog] separate touch_nmi_watchdog code path from touch_watchdog |
| |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 02:48:18PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:13:36PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > When I combined the nmi_watchdog (hardlockup) and softlockup code, I > > also combined the paths the touch_watchdog and touch_nmi_watchdog took. > > This may not be the best idea as pointed out by Frederic W., that the > > touch_watchdog case probably should not reset the hardlockup count. > > > > Therefore the patch belows falls back to the previous idea of keeping > > the touch_nmi_watchdog a superset of the touch_watchdog case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> > > > > Good. But now that we have this, it doesn't make sense anymore > to have the big rename touch_softlockup_watchdog() into touch_watchdog(). > > I know it was me who advised you to do this big rename, but that was > before I realised touching the softlockup shouldn't mean touching nmi > watchdog too. > > I'm sorry about this but this big rename doesn't make sense anymore. > > Can we drop touch_watchdog() and keep only the two previous APIs we had > before? > > 1) we avoid a big patch very likely to bring conflicts everywhere > 2) touch_softlockup_watchdog() is much more self-explanatory in what > it does. People will have less doubts about what happens when they > call this. > > Thanks.
ok. I'll repost.
Cheers, Don
>
| |