From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754406Ab0ESIqi (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2010 04:46:38 -0400 Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:63829 "EHLO mail-ww0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752992Ab0ESIqg (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2010 04:46:36 -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=ZiAjwMF8ycSpdpxIKaehBth10LGZeSIYwjlV9eWSTaNtAadJQpDaE9/HRdUsPbiZOI rA4sYLsnBSZNFf1joYYdaxnxNEVpttsyg/DLKUPjgRMWtwHPUjFghSNQ+7BZbKqj2ZY4 RLe8gedvJbSSKhykDCvdC0NphWc/3FLPy/JvM= Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:46:40 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Don Zickus Cc: mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, gorcunov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [watchdog] separate hardlockup/softlockup enable paths Message-ID: <20100519084638.GH5704@nowhere> References: <1274133966-18415-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <1274133966-18415-3-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274133966-18415-3-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 Mon, May 17, 2010 at 06:06:05PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > In preparation to support the backwards compatible option nmi_watchdog properly > from the kernel commandline, the enable/disable paths for the hardlockup and > softlockup code needed to separated more cleanly. > > The code is re-arranged a bit to create a watchdog_softlockup_enable/disable > function to mimic the hardlockup counterpart. In addition, a softlockup callback > is created to make it easy to turn the softlockup code on/off with out interfering > with the hardlockup code. > > The functionality should still be the same. I don't think we want this really. The unification is not only a good thing for maintainance and genericity of code but also for the fact now we don't need anymore to worry about which watchdog to turn on/off. The fact is often when you have a lockup, you don't even know if it is soft or hard. If you are on X, you won't know. So people just don't bother about such granularity of control, they simply enable or disable both detectors. I would suggest you to let the things how they are and not making the code more complicated for something that won't be used. Just forget about the nmi_watchdog file. A simple watchdog file to control everything is much better. Thanks.