From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753037AbdJLSQF (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:16:05 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:43716 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752345AbdJLSQC (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:16:02 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDcq0bZ8iUwoaCbpZW+oTASWQgmsr/wYs3JM7aeDQ7MTjlOSYaS9EXLm0A8J/O4ybd3C31DRw== Message-ID: <1507832159.4735.47.camel@arista.com> Subject: Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY From: Radu Rendec To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:15:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20171011184603.GB8756@roeck-us.net> References: <1507743991.3486.5.camel@arista.com> <20171011184603.GB8756@roeck-us.net> Organization: Arista Networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5 (3.24.5-1.fc26) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate > > both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb > > first (which uses the "legacy" watchdog API) and then softdog. This > > gets us two "error" level messages (coming from watchdog_cdev_register) > > although softdog falls back to the "new" API and registers its char > > device just fine. > > > > Since watchdog_cdev_register/watchdog_dev_register seem to be used only > > by watchdog_register_device and the latter always falls back to the > > "new" API, I'm thinking about lowering the log level of these messages > > when err is -EBUSY. > > I would suggest to convert the offending driver to use the watchdog subsystem > (and along the line remove the restriction of only supporting a single > instance). You have the hardware, so that should be a straightforward change. Thanks for the suggestion! That makes sense. I will start working on converting i6300esb and submit a patch in a few days. By the way, I don't have the hardware. I'm using it with KVM (Qemu), but I guess that's good enough since I'm not going to touch any of the code parts that deal with the hardware. Radu