From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752326Ab1GLJV1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:21:27 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:41201 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752188Ab1GLJV0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:21:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:24:10 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck , LKML , Linux Watchdog Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] watchdog: WatchDog Timer Driver Core - Add basic framework Message-ID: <20110712102410.2ba3834f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <4E1B8089.90103@metafoo.de> References: <1310392522-9949-1-git-send-email-wim@iguana.be> <4E1B8089.90103@metafoo.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > + /* stop the watchdog */ > > + err = wdd->ops->stop(wdd); > Does it really make sense to allow stop() to fail? Will this ever happen, and > if yes do we gain anything by sending a additional ping? It gives user space more time to react - or would do if the err was propogated.