From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757342AbbEVNYL (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 09:24:11 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:51713 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756850AbbEVNYF (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 09:24:05 -0400 Message-ID: <555F2DED.2010200@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 06:23:57 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fu Wei , Timo Kokkonen CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit , Linaro ACPI Mailman List , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Wei Fu , G Gregory , Al Stone , Hanjun Guo , Timur Tabi , Ashwin Chaugule , Arnd Bergmann , vgandhi@codeaurora.org, wim@iguana.be, Jon Masters , Leo Duran , Jon Corbet , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] Watchdog: introduce "pretimeout" into framework References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <555ECD04.6000404@offcode.fi> <555EEFDB.2030907@offcode.fi> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/22/2015 03:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote: > Hi Timo, > [ ... ] > So I am still trying to improve pretimeout support :-) Is there anything still missing from it ? > If I can make pretimeout merged, may be you can try pretimeout to > implement early_timeout_sec function? Not sure how one would or even could do that. Do you mean "implement early_pretimeout_sec", by any chance ? > It is up to the maintainers, I will try my best. > Please don't make the pretimeout concept more complicated than necessary. The smaller the patch, the more likely it is to get accepted. The more you change, the more difficult it is for the maintainer to, for example, back-port later bug fixes into earlier kernel releases when needed. This is why it is, for example, better to keep the existing watchdog_init_timeout() function instead of just replacing it with watchdog_init_timeouts(). Try to put yourself into the maintainer's perspective: If you were the maintainer, would you rather accept a patch or patch set which maintains the existing API and doesn't require any changes to existing drivers, or would you accept one that changes, say, some function or variable names and will require manual back-ports later on if there is a bug fix ? Would you rather accept a patch that adds 50 lines of code, or one that changes another 100+ lines and rearranges everything along the line ? Thanks, Guenter