Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce watchdog_suspend() and watchdog_resume()

[Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ...
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce watchdog_suspend() and watchdog_resume()
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 02:49:23PM +0200, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
>> This interface can be utilized to deactivate the hard and soft lockup
>> detector temporarily. Callers are expected to minimize the duration of
>> deactivation. Multiple deactivations are allowed to occur in parallel
>> but should be rare in practice.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/nmi.h |  2 ++
>>  kernel/watchdog.c   | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/include/linux/nmi.h b/include/linux/nmi.h
>> index f94da0e..60050c2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/nmi.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/nmi.h
>> @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ extern int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_table *, int ,
>>  				void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>>  extern int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *, int,
>>  				 void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>> +extern int watchdog_suspend(void);
>> +extern void watchdog_resume(void);
>
> How about nmi_watchdog_enable() and nmi_watchdog_disable() to avoid confusion
> with the watchdog subsystem ?

Guenter,

Good point. However, I would like to avoid the 'nmi_' prefix in the
function names as it could be misleading. watchdog_{suspend|resume}
affect both -the hard and soft lockup detector- so I think function
names like

  lockup_detector_suspend()  instead of watchdog_suspend()
  lockup_detector_resume()   instead of watchdog_resume()

would summarize better what these functions are intended to be used
for. The above names would also be consistent with the existing name
 
  lockup_detector_init()

Many Thanks,

Uli