From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757301AbbEVOih (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 10:38:37 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:35562 "EHLO mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756688AbbEVOid (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 10:38:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <555F2DED.2010200@roeck-us.net> 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> <555F2DED.2010200@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:38:32 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] Watchdog: introduce "pretimeout" into framework From: Fu Wei To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Timo Kokkonen , 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Guenter. Sorry for my poor English . let me explain this : On 22 May 2015 at 21:23, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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 ? I mean: using pretimeout to implement the function you want, instead of early_pretimeout_sec Hope I say the right word this time :-) > >> 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 > -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct) Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile) Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15, One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District, Shanghai,China 200021 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fu Wei Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] Watchdog: introduce "pretimeout" into framework Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:38:32 +0800 Message-ID: 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> <555F2DED.2010200@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <555F2DED.2010200-0h96xk9xTtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-watchdog-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Timo Kokkonen , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Linaro ACPI Mailman List , linux-watchdog-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wei Fu , G Gregory , Al Stone , Hanjun Guo , Timur Tabi , Ashwin Chaugule , Arnd Bergmann , vgandhi-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, wim-IQzOog9fTRqzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org, Jon Masters , Leo Duran , Jon Corbet , Mark Rutland List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Guenter. Sorry for my poor English . let me explain this : On 22 May 2015 at 21:23, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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 ? I mean: using pretimeout to implement the function you want, instead of early_pretimeout_sec Hope I say the right word this time :-) > >> 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 > -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct) Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile) Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15, One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District, Shanghai,China 200021 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html