From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756505Ab0DEURM (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:17:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8259 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756456Ab0DEURI (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:17:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:16:46 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho , mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, aris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup Message-ID: <20100405201646.GF15159@redhat.com> References: <20100323213338.GA29170@redhat.com> <20100328024650.GA26522@jake.ruivo.org> <20100329182617.GI15159@redhat.com> <20100330145238.GG6706@cathedrallabs.org> <20100405201111.GF5079@lenovo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100405201111.GF5079@lenovo> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 12:11:11AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > 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? Agreed. Cheers, Don