Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 May 2015 01:22:41 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] Watchdog: introdouce "pretimeout" into framework | From | Fu Wei <> |
| |
Hi Guenter,
yes, I think it is OK for me,
Once this patchset is merged, I will try to make a new patchset just for this integration.
On 16 May 2015 at 02:01, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote: >> Hi Guenter, >> >> Great thanks for your review, >> feedback inline below :-) >> >> On 15 May 2015 at 21:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > [ ... ] > >> >> + if (wdd->max_pretimeout && wdd->max_timeout < wdd->max_pretimeout) >> >> { >> >> + pr_info("Invalid max timeout, resetting to max >> >> pretimeout!\n"); >> >> + wdd->max_timeout = wdd->max_pretimeout; >> >> + } >> > >> > >> > I am a bit concerned about the context dependency introduced here. If >> > someone calls >> > _init_pretimeout after calling init_timeout, this may result in still >> > invalid timeout >> > values. >> >> yes, that logic is not very clean, so my thought is : >> maybe we can integrate watchdog_init_timeout and watchdog_init_pretimeout, >> if maintainer agree to add pretimeout into framework. >> > I think we should just assume that Wim will accept it, and try to find > the best possible solution (or at least a good one). > > Guenter
-- Best regards,
Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct) Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile) Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15, One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District, Shanghai,China 200021
| |