Re: [PATCH 2/3] [watchdog] separate hardlockup/softlockup enablepaths

From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Wed May 19 2010 - 04:46:42 EST

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 06:06:05PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> In preparation to support the backwards compatible option nmi_watchdog properly
> from the kernel commandline, the enable/disable paths for the hardlockup and
> softlockup code needed to separated more cleanly.
> The code is re-arranged a bit to create a watchdog_softlockup_enable/disable
> function to mimic the hardlockup counterpart. In addition, a softlockup callback
> is created to make it easy to turn the softlockup code on/off with out interfering
> with the hardlockup code.
> The functionality should still be the same.

I don't think we want this really. The unification is not only a good
thing for maintainance and genericity of code but also for the fact now
we don't need anymore to worry about which watchdog to turn on/off.

The fact is often when you have a lockup, you don't even know if it
is soft or hard. If you are on X, you won't know.

So people just don't bother about such granularity of control, they simply
enable or disable both detectors.

I would suggest you to let the things how they are and not making the code
more complicated for something that won't be used.

Just forget about the nmi_watchdog file. A simple watchdog file to control
everything is much better.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at