From: panand@redhat.com (Pratyush Anand)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:21:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160503155141.GF13045@dhcppc6.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5728BEC4.6050603@codeaurora.org>
On 03/05/2016:10:07:48 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Pratyush Anand wrote:
> >In fact after supporting max_hw_heartbeat_ms, there should be no change for
> >action=0 functionally. However, we would still need some changes for action=1.
>
> IMHO, action=1 is more of a debugging option, and not something that would
> be used normally. I would need to see some evidence that real users want to
> have action=1 and a longer timeout.
>
If action=1 need to be used effectively, then we should have something which
would help to increase timeout values.
Currently you have only 10 second to execute secondary kernel, which might not
be sufficient.
> I've never been a fan of the action=1 option, and I'm certainly not keen any
> patches that make action=1 more complicated than it already is.
I think, with max_hw_heartbeat_ms it would be far more simpler. Will attempt and
send another RFC.
~Pratyush
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-03 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-03 8:20 [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 12:12 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 13:24 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 13:47 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 14:17 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 14:46 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 15:04 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 13:29 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 14:38 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 15:07 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 15:51 ` Pratyush Anand [this message]
2016-05-03 17:16 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-04 14:14 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-04 14:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-04 15:59 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-04 16:17 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 16:43 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 18:20 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-05 18:22 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:36 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:38 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:45 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-06 0:18 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:51 ` Guenter Roeck
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=20160503155141.GF13045@dhcppc6.redhat.com \
--to=panand@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).