From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754140AbbERRWp (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22:45 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]:36050 "EHLO mail-ob0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752665AbbERRWm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150515180105.GB19230@roeck-us.net> References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1431689090-3125-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <5555F5C5.8050806@roeck-us.net> <20150515180105.GB19230@roeck-us.net> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 01:22:41 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Watchdog: introdouce "pretimeout" into framework From: Fu Wei To: Guenter Roeck 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 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, yes, I think it is OK for me, Once this patchset is merged, I will try to make a new patchset just for this integration. On 16 May 2015 at 02:01, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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 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 -- 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 4/6] Watchdog: introdouce "pretimeout" into framework Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 01:22:41 +0800 Message-ID: References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1431689090-3125-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <5555F5C5.8050806@roeck-us.net> <20150515180105.GB19230@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150515180105.GB19230-0h96xk9xTtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-watchdog-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Guenter Roeck Cc: 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 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Guenter, yes, I think it is OK for me, Once this patchset is merged, I will try to make a new patchset just for this integration. On 16 May 2015 at 02:01, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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 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 -- 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