Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce watchdog_suspend() and watchdog_resume()

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 10:39:22AM -0400, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > ...
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce watchdog_suspend() and watchdog_resume()
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 02:49:23PM +0200, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> >> This interface can be utilized to deactivate the hard and soft lockup
> >> detector temporarily. Callers are expected to minimize the duration of
> >> deactivation. Multiple deactivations are allowed to occur in parallel
> >> but should be rare in practice.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/nmi.h |  2 ++
> >>  kernel/watchdog.c   | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/nmi.h b/include/linux/nmi.h
> >> index f94da0e..60050c2 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/nmi.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/nmi.h
> >> @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ extern int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_table *, int ,
> >>  				void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> >>  extern int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *, int,
> >>  				 void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> >> +extern int watchdog_suspend(void);
> >> +extern void watchdog_resume(void);
> >
> > How about nmi_watchdog_enable() and nmi_watchdog_disable() to avoid confusion
> > with the watchdog subsystem ?
> 
> Guenter,
> 
> Good point. However, I would like to avoid the 'nmi_' prefix in the
> function names as it could be misleading. watchdog_{suspend|resume}
> affect both -the hard and soft lockup detector- so I think function
> names like
> 
>   lockup_detector_suspend()  instead of watchdog_suspend()
>   lockup_detector_resume()   instead of watchdog_resume()
> 
> would summarize better what these functions are intended to be used
> for. The above names would also be consistent with the existing name
>  
>   lockup_detector_init()
> 
Makes sense.

Thanks,
Guenter