Re: [PATCH 4/6] Watchdog: introdouce "pretimeout" into framework

[Guenter Roeck]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> Great thanks for your review,
> feedback inline below :-)
> 
> On 15 May 2015 at 21:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[ ... ]

> >> +       if (wdd->max_pretimeout && wdd->max_timeout < wdd->max_pretimeout)
> >> {
> >> +               pr_info("Invalid max timeout, resetting to max
> >> pretimeout!\n");
> >> +               wdd->max_timeout = wdd->max_pretimeout;
> >> +       }
> >
> >
> > I am a bit concerned about the context dependency introduced here. If
> > someone calls
> > _init_pretimeout after calling init_timeout, this may result in still
> > invalid timeout
> > values.
> 
> yes, that logic is not very clean, so my thought is :
> maybe we can integrate watchdog_init_timeout and watchdog_init_pretimeout,
> if maintainer agree to add pretimeout into framework.
> 
I think we should just assume that Wim will accept it, and try to find
the best possible solution (or at least a good one).

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/