From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750732AbWDRWY3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:24:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750776AbWDRWY3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:24:29 -0400 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.178]:17891 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbWDRWY2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:24:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <44453EB6.4060907@sh.cvut.cz> References: <4443EED9.30603@sh.cvut.cz> <200604180254.47827.arnd@arndb.de> <44453EB6.4060907@sh.cvut.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <46C8B7BA-4112-4F57-B7E0-BF5912D742D4@mac.com> Cc: Arnd Bergmann , wim@iguana.be, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mark Rustad Subject: Re: [RFC] Watchdog device class Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:24:08 -0500 To: Rudolf Marek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Rudolf Marek wrote: >> What's the point in having more than one watchdog active? >> If you want more than one, why hardcode a specific limit? > > I thought there might be such future need, nowdays it used > to test the stuff. > > If nobody here wants it I have no problem to change the class just > to allow > one active watchdog. Actually, I have a case right now. For us, a watchdog with minute granularity is just too long, but that is the only hardware watchdog available. So, we use softdog for finer granularity and the additional crappy hardware watchdog just to catch cases that softdog doesn't. I just wanted to pass along an example where more than one watchdog is needed for your consideration. -- Mark Rustad, MRustad@mac.com