Re: [RFC] x86/watchdog: Always disable watchdog before console_force_unlock()

[Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>]

On 12/08/2013 10:43, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

>>>> On 12.08.13 at 11:35, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 12/08/13 09:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 09.08.13 at 23:17, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> console_force_unlock() is only on emergency paths, so one way or another
>>>> the
>>>> host is going down.  Disable the watchdog before forcing the console lock
>>>> to
>>>> help prevent having pcpus completing with each other to bring the host
>>>> down.
>>> So perhaps rather than calling watchdog_disable() before calling
>>> console_force_unlock(), would we not better call the former first
>>> thing from the latter?
>> 
>> That was indeed my first attempt, but console_force_unlock() is common
>> while watchdog_* is x86.
>> 
>> I could convert the watchdog to arch specific.  I suppose it is
>> possible/likely that the Arm folk might want to implement and use
>> watchdogs ?
> 
> So would I think. Just have ARM have an empty function for the
> moment.

Yes, watchdog is not an x86-specific concept so making some general-purpose
watchdog functions common and stubbed out on some architectures makes total
sense.

 -- Keir

> Jan
>