Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce arch_touch_nmi_watchdog()

[Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:55:59 -0400
Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:28:54PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
> > them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have
> > them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog().
> > 
> > This gives the generic code more flexibility in implementing this
> > function, and arch implementations don't miss out on touching the
> > softlockup watchdog or other generic details.  
> 
> The idea makes sense.  I don't think you can have hld_touch_nmi_watchdog
> defined with arch_touch_nmi_watchdog, so I am wondering if it makes sense to
> combine them somehow.  Though renaming hld_touch_nmi_watchdog to
> arch_touch_nmi_watchdog sounds odd, I think it mimics the idea.

Yeah I agree it's not quite right, and I think using
arch_touch_nmi_watchdog would be fine for the hld, which makes sense
if you think of it as a utility or library function for architectures
that want a hardlockup watchdog and can use perf for it.

I can change that if you prefer. BTW the 0day picked up another
Kconfig compile bug, so I'll respin the series and include any changes
you like.

Thanks,
Nick