From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S940656AbdEZOFe (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2017 10:05:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53278 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936276AbdEZOFc (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2017 10:05:32 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com AE3A5ED259 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dzickus@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com AE3A5ED259 Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:05:30 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Nicholas Piggin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce arch_touch_nmi_watchdog() Message-ID: <20170526140530.s2rvwklbzoygppkm@redhat.com> References: <20170525082856.21685-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20170525082856.21685-3-npiggin@gmail.com> <20170525135559.ltu4coxjghx2ovce@redhat.com> <20170526103103.31fd6801@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170526103103.31fd6801@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170428-dirty (1.8.2) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 26 May 2017 14:05:31 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:31:03AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:55:59 -0400 > Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:28:54PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having > > > them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have > > > them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog(). > > > > > > This gives the generic code more flexibility in implementing this > > > function, and arch implementations don't miss out on touching the > > > softlockup watchdog or other generic details. > > > > The idea makes sense. I don't think you can have hld_touch_nmi_watchdog > > defined with arch_touch_nmi_watchdog, so I am wondering if it makes sense to > > combine them somehow. Though renaming hld_touch_nmi_watchdog to > > arch_touch_nmi_watchdog sounds odd, I think it mimics the idea. > > Yeah I agree it's not quite right, and I think using > arch_touch_nmi_watchdog would be fine for the hld, which makes sense > if you think of it as a utility or library function for architectures > that want a hardlockup watchdog and can use perf for it. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind trying that. Over the last year it seems there is a push to make the hld more of a separate thing if folks want to use perf. I have been trying to tweak it so it can be used in-place of the arch solution or just use the arch solution. And still retain the same function calls. Cheers, Don > > I can change that if you prefer. BTW the 0day picked up another > Kconfig compile bug, so I'll respin the series and include any changes > you like. > > Thanks, > Nick