On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 02:48:18PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:13:36PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > When I combined the nmi_watchdog (hardlockup) and softlockup code, I
> > also combined the paths the touch_watchdog and touch_nmi_watchdog took.
> > This may not be the best idea as pointed out by Frederic W., that the
> > touch_watchdog case probably should not reset the hardlockup count.
> > 
> > Therefore the patch belows falls back to the previous idea of keeping
> > the touch_nmi_watchdog a superset of the touch_watchdog case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Good. But now that we have this, it doesn't make sense anymore
> to have the big rename touch_softlockup_watchdog() into touch_watchdog().
> 
> I know it was me who advised you to do this big rename, but that was
> before I realised touching the softlockup shouldn't mean touching nmi
> watchdog too.
> 
> I'm sorry about this but this big rename doesn't make sense anymore.
> 
> Can we drop touch_watchdog() and keep only the two previous APIs we had
> before?
> 
> 1) we avoid a big patch very likely to bring conflicts everywhere
> 2) touch_softlockup_watchdog() is much more self-explanatory in what
>    it does. People will have less doubts about what happens when they
>    call this.
> 
> Thanks.

ok.  I'll repost.

Cheers,
Don

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