Re: [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:52:38AM -0400, Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho wrote:
> > 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
> 

Sorry for a long delay, I think we might need to inform a user that "lapic",
"ioapic" is no longer used (perf-nmi is supposed to substitute the former nmi
code in a long term right?) so that for some time period, say the whole release
cycle, if lapic or ioapic, or numbers are passed to nmi_watchdog= setup option
we would just print out that the parameters are deprecated and better to not
use them any longer. Hm?

	-- Cyrill