Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:28:00 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [Watchdog][Trivial] Added comments to explain watchdog_disabled variable | From | anish singh <> |
| |
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > * anish singh <anish198519851985@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is the below patch picked up? >> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:31 PM, anish kumar <anish198519851985@gmail.com> wrote: >> > From: anish kumar <anish198519851985@gmail.com> >> > >> > This watchdog_disabled flag is bit of cryptic.Howerver it's usefullnes is multifold. >> > Uses are: >> > 1. Check if smpboot_register_percpu_thread function passed. >> > 2. Makes sure that user enables and disables the watchdog in sequence >> > i.e. enable watchdog->disable watchdog->enable watchdog >> > Unlike enable watchdog->enable watchdog which is wrong. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: anish kumar <anish198519851985@gmail.com> >> > --- >> > kernel/watchdog.c | 5 +++++ >> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c >> > index 75a2ab3..87a19aa 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c >> > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c >> > @@ -518,6 +518,11 @@ int proc_dowatchdog(struct ctl_table *table, int write, >> > return ret; >> > >> > set_sample_period(); >> > + /* >> > + * We shouldn't enable watchdog threads if it is >> > + * disabled.This is done by watchdog_disabled >> > + * variable check in watchdog_*_all_cpus function. > > It has two grammatic and a stylistic error in it, plus misses Would you mind pointing it out to me the grammatical mistakes as I am not that good with grammar. I thought I followed the conventions as below: /* * * */ > the convention that function names are mentioned with a '()'. > > Thanks, > > Ingo
| |