Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:51:21 -0500 | From | Don Zickus <> | Subject | Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu |
| |
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:48:27PM +0530, anish kumar wrote: > Sorry for digressing from the topic but I think there is something wrong > with my understanding or something wrong with the code.So I guess Don > can clarify this. > If I pass this below parameter during boot i.e. setting watchdog_enabled > to zero. > __setup("nowatchdog", nowatchdog_setup); > > Now I use sysctl to enable the watchdog then wouldn't the below code > will hinder enabling the watchdog? > > static void watchdog_enable_all_cpus(void) > {//snip > if (watchdog_disabled) { /* this is zero ?? */ > watchdog_disabled = 0; > //snip > } > > Should watchdog_disabled be set to 1?Or is it that we always disable the > watchdog and then enable it?
It seems like a bug, so does something like this fix it? There is probably a better way to handle the internal representation of the watchdog state (watchdog_disable) and the procfs version (watchdog_enable), but I just can't think of something right now. :-(
Cheers, Don
diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c index 75a2ab3..d287726 100644 --- a/kernel/watchdog.c +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ __setup("softlockup_panic=", softlockup_panic_setup); static int __init nowatchdog_setup(char *str) { watchdog_enabled = 0; + watchdog_disabled =1; return 1; } __setup("nowatchdog", nowatchdog_setup);
| |