From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753373Ab0D1MsV (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:48:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:64423 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752280Ab0D1MsT (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:48:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=YBxwWzJaCP31efolXUC7daVz2lYAXYttFZYHjjhV7rMGzRnBybiKqSQycrcAKazHFi rWLPUWRFuXPg4Ukr5E2NCC/OfZar0S12O8AVlhnR9NL+e7Tc9kU7DghXbqhuEQdy5LM5 LaWBQvrYPWpRS2Lc/fYdw9OmzhL1vJYnS57Mg= Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:48:18 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Don Zickus Cc: mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, gorcunov@gmail.com, aris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] [watchdog] separate touch_nmi_watchdog code path from touch_watchdog Message-ID: <20100428124815.GB12017@nowhere> References: <1272039216-8890-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <1272039216-8890-9-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1272039216-8890-9-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:13:36PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > When I combined the nmi_watchdog (hardlockup) and softlockup code, I > also combined the paths the touch_watchdog and touch_nmi_watchdog took. > This may not be the best idea as pointed out by Frederic W., that the > touch_watchdog case probably should not reset the hardlockup count. > > Therefore the patch belows falls back to the previous idea of keeping > the touch_nmi_watchdog a superset of the touch_watchdog case. > > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus Good. But now that we have this, it doesn't make sense anymore to have the big rename touch_softlockup_watchdog() into touch_watchdog(). I know it was me who advised you to do this big rename, but that was before I realised touching the softlockup shouldn't mean touching nmi watchdog too. I'm sorry about this but this big rename doesn't make sense anymore. Can we drop touch_watchdog() and keep only the two previous APIs we had before? 1) we avoid a big patch very likely to bring conflicts everywhere 2) touch_softlockup_watchdog() is much more self-explanatory in what it does. People will have less doubts about what happens when they call this. Thanks.