From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756406Ab0C3OxE (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:53:04 -0400 Received: from lobo.ruivo.org ([173.14.175.98]:44071 "EHLO lobo.ruivo.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751822Ab0C3OxB (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:53:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:52:38 -0400 From: Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho To: Don Zickus Cc: mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, gorcunov@gmail.com, aris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup Message-ID: <20100330145238.GG6706@cathedrallabs.org> References: <20100323213338.GA29170@redhat.com> <20100328024650.GA26522@jake.ruivo.org> <20100329182617.GI15159@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100329182617.GI15159@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:46:50PM -0400, Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho wrote: > > Hi Don, > > > +/* deprecated */ > > > +static int __init nosoftlockup_setup(char *str) > > > +{ > > > + no_watchdog = 1; > > > + return 1; > > > +} > > > +__setup("nosoftlockup", nosoftlockup_setup); > > > +static int __init nonmi_watchdog_setup(char *str) > > > +{ > > > + no_watchdog = 1; > > > + return 1; > > > +} > > > +__setup("nonmi_watchdog", nonmi_watchdog_setup); > > didn't you just add nonmi_watchdog parameter? I don't think there's a reason > > to keep compatibility here. > > Hmm, I think you are right. I thought I added that because it existed in > the old nmi_watchdog setup but I can't find it. So yeah, I can drop that. you could provide a nmi_watchdog=0 backwards compatibility and warn about values != 0 -- Aristeu