From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: control hard lockup detection default Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:16:38 +0200 Message-ID: <53D8FE46.2000100@redhat.com> References: <1406196811-5384-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <1406196811-5384-3-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <615371508.17867577.1406277175913.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20140725112510.GA3456@hawk.usersys.redhat.com> <20140730134342.GA7959@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ulrich Obergfell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com To: Don Zickus , Andrew Jones Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140730134342.GA7959@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Il 30/07/2014 15:43, Don Zickus ha scritto: >> > Nice catch. Looks like this will need a v2. Paolo, do we have a >> > consensus on the proc echoing? Or should that be revisited in the v2 as >> > well? > As discussed privately, how about something like this to handle that case: > (applied on top of these patches) Don, what do you think about proc? My opinion is still what I mentioned earlier in the thread, i.e. that if the file says "1", writing "0" and then "1" should not constitute a change WRT to the initial state. Paolo