From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: "Janusz Użycki" <j.uzycki@elproma.com.pl>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>,
linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] watchdog: watchdog_dev: WATCHDOG_KEEP_ON feature
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:47:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <542AB482.5060102@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <542A8471.8060401@elproma.com.pl>
On 09/30/2014 03:22 AM, Janusz Użycki wrote:
>
> W dniu 2014-09-30 06:37, Guenter Roeck pisze:
>> On 09/29/2014 09:25 AM, Janusz Użycki wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patch set is trying to solve four problems at once:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Auto-start watchdog when its driver registers
>>>> 2) Keep watchdog running when its driver registers until userspace opens it
>>>> 3) Handle watchdogs which can not be stopped after being started
>>>> 4) Keep watchdog running with kernel timer after it has been closed,
>>>> even if it can be stopped.
>>>>
>>>> The next time adds 'boot time protection', which is really another term
>>>> for an initial timeout, and case 5).
>>>>
>>>> That is a bit too much for a single patch and, even more so, a single flag.
>>>
>>> OK, but I think [PATCH 3/6] could be applied.
>>> Do you agree? Should I resent it separately?
>>
>> Yes, it looks ok.
>
> Can you apply it?
>
I don't apply watchdog patches; I only provide review feedback.
>>
>>> I omited in the comment
>>> "The patch adds suspend/resume PM support to stmp3xxx_rtc_wdt
>>> watchdog driver" because the subject is almost the same.
>>>
>>>> Let's look at one case after another.
>>>>
>>>> Auto-start watchdog when its driver registers - this makes sense as a
>>>> feature just by itself. A good name for its flag might be something like
>>>> WDT_AUTOSTART. A matching module parameter might also make sense.
>>>>
>>>> autostart:
>>>> Set to 0 to disable, -1 to enable with unlimited timeout,
>>>> or <n> for an initial timeout of <n> seconds.
>>>
>>> Current start(1) + keep-on(2,3,4) + boottime(5) combined. It looks OK.
>>>
>> Maybe for you. For me they are different cases.
>
> They are different. I missed some words in the first sentence :)
> However autostart automatically combine them together again :)
> The problem is common timer so the patches are dependent.
> There is no reason to use more timers.
>
I did not say use multiple timers. I said use multiple flags.
Guenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] watchdog: watchdog_dev: WATCHDOG_KEEP_ON feature
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:47:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <542AB482.5060102@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <542A8471.8060401@elproma.com.pl>
On 09/30/2014 03:22 AM, Janusz U?ycki wrote:
>
> W dniu 2014-09-30 06:37, Guenter Roeck pisze:
>> On 09/29/2014 09:25 AM, Janusz U?ycki wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patch set is trying to solve four problems at once:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Auto-start watchdog when its driver registers
>>>> 2) Keep watchdog running when its driver registers until userspace opens it
>>>> 3) Handle watchdogs which can not be stopped after being started
>>>> 4) Keep watchdog running with kernel timer after it has been closed,
>>>> even if it can be stopped.
>>>>
>>>> The next time adds 'boot time protection', which is really another term
>>>> for an initial timeout, and case 5).
>>>>
>>>> That is a bit too much for a single patch and, even more so, a single flag.
>>>
>>> OK, but I think [PATCH 3/6] could be applied.
>>> Do you agree? Should I resent it separately?
>>
>> Yes, it looks ok.
>
> Can you apply it?
>
I don't apply watchdog patches; I only provide review feedback.
>>
>>> I omited in the comment
>>> "The patch adds suspend/resume PM support to stmp3xxx_rtc_wdt
>>> watchdog driver" because the subject is almost the same.
>>>
>>>> Let's look at one case after another.
>>>>
>>>> Auto-start watchdog when its driver registers - this makes sense as a
>>>> feature just by itself. A good name for its flag might be something like
>>>> WDT_AUTOSTART. A matching module parameter might also make sense.
>>>>
>>>> autostart:
>>>> Set to 0 to disable, -1 to enable with unlimited timeout,
>>>> or <n> for an initial timeout of <n> seconds.
>>>
>>> Current start(1) + keep-on(2,3,4) + boottime(5) combined. It looks OK.
>>>
>> Maybe for you. For me they are different cases.
>
> They are different. I missed some words in the first sentence :)
> However autostart automatically combine them together again :)
> The problem is common timer so the patches are dependent.
> There is no reason to use more timers.
>
I did not say use multiple timers. I said use multiple flags.
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-30 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-22 20:55 [PATCH 1/6] watchdog: watchdog_dev: WATCHDOG_KEEP_ON feature Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` [PATCH 2/6] watchdog: boottime protection feature (requires 'keep on') Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` [PATCH 3/6] stmp3xxx_rtc_wdt: Add suspend/resume PM support Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-30 13:46 ` [3/6] " Guenter Roeck
2014-09-30 13:46 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-09-22 20:55 ` [PATCH 4/6] stmp3xxx_rtc_wdt: WATCHDOG_KEEP_ON enabled Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` [PATCH 5/6] watchdog: suspend/resume PM helper Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` [PATCH 6/6] stmp3xxx_rtc_wdt: use watchdog's " Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-22 20:55 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-26 4:01 ` [PATCH 1/6] watchdog: watchdog_dev: WATCHDOG_KEEP_ON feature Guenter Roeck
2014-09-26 4:01 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-09-29 16:25 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-09-29 16:25 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-09-30 4:37 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-09-30 4:37 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-09-30 10:22 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-09-30 10:22 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-09-30 13:47 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2014-09-30 13:47 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-09-30 12:46 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-30 12:46 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-30 12:46 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-30 12:46 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-09-30 12:58 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-09-30 12:58 ` Janusz Użycki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=542AB482.5060102@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=j.uzycki@elproma.com.pl \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.