From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:51:45 -0500 From: Vivien Didelot To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Damien Riegel , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , kernel@savoirfairelinux.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/13] watchdog: core: add restart handler support Message-ID: <20151103025145.GA29120@ketchup.lan> References: <1446514586-31455-1-git-send-email-damien.riegel@savoirfairelinux.com> <1446514586-31455-2-git-send-email-damien.riegel@savoirfairelinux.com> <56381B03.6030201@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56381B03.6030201@roeck-us.net> List-ID: Hi Guenter, On Nov. Monday 02 (45) 06:25 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/02/2015 05:36 PM, Damien Riegel wrote: > >Many watchdog drivers implement the same code to register a restart > >handler. This patch provides a generic way to set such a function. > > > >The patch adds a new restart watchdog operation. If a restart priority > >greater than 0 is needed, the driver can call > >watchdog_set_restart_priority to set it. > > > >Signed-off-by: Damien Riegel > >Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot > > Makes sense, and good idea. Unless the patch was written by Vivien, > the second tag should probably be a Reviewed-by: or Acked-by:, though. We wrote that together, but Damien did most of the work. So I think Reviewed-by: for me will indeed be most appropriate here. Also is it OK to include your Reviewed-by: tag in the v1 (given we add your comments) or not? Thanks! -v