Re: [PATCH] [Watchdog][Trivial] Added comments to explainwatchdog_disabled variable
From: anish singh
Date: Wed Feb 13 2013 - 04:58:11 EST
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * anish singh <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Is the below patch picked up?
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:31 PM, anish kumar <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > From: anish kumar <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > This watchdog_disabled flag is bit of cryptic.Howerver it's usefullnes is multifold.
>> > Uses are:
>> > 1. Check if smpboot_register_percpu_thread function passed.
>> > 2. Makes sure that user enables and disables the watchdog in sequence
>> > i.e. enable watchdog->disable watchdog->enable watchdog
>> > Unlike enable watchdog->enable watchdog which is wrong.
>> > Signed-off-by: anish kumar <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > kernel/watchdog.c | 5 +++++
>> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> > diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
>> > index 75a2ab3..87a19aa 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
>> > @@ -518,6 +518,11 @@ int proc_dowatchdog(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> > return ret;
>> > set_sample_period();
>> > + /*
>> > + * We shouldn't enable watchdog threads if it is
>> > + * disabled.This is done by watchdog_disabled
>> > + * variable check in watchdog_*_all_cpus function.
> It has two grammatic and a stylistic error in it, plus misses
Would you mind pointing it out to me the grammatical mistakes
as I am not that good with grammar.
I thought I followed the conventions as below:
> the convention that function names are mentioned with a '()'.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/