From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757041Ab0D1U3f (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:29:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59838 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752198Ab0D1U3d (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:29:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:28:49 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Frederic Weisbecker 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: <20100428202849.GS15159@redhat.com> References: <1272039216-8890-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <1272039216-8890-9-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <20100428124815.GB12017@nowhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100428124815.GB12017@nowhere> 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 Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 02:48:18PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 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. ok. I'll repost. Cheers, Don >