On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 03:47:45AM -0500, Daniel Newby wrote: > On 5/24/07, Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It sounds like your constraining your driver based on terminology. > >Watchdogs on most embedded platforms support either a 'reset' mode or > >otherwise act as periodic timers, trying to push both of these > >functionalities in to a watchdog driver is rather pointless. > >CONFIG_WATCHDOG implies 'reset' mode by definition. > > I agree for a product in the hands of a customer: let the watchdog > pull your bacon out of the fire. > > But what about debugging? Suppose your embedded computer with custom > drivers locks up solid every few hundred hours. It would be nice if > the watchdog gave a stack dump instead erasing the evidence. How about > having "action=reset" and "action=debug"? > Again, CONFIG_WATCHDOG implies reset by definition. If you'd like to propose pluggable policies for CONFIG_WATCHDOG and post the code for that, go right ahead.
For soft lockups, there's already the softlockup code which does what you seem to be leaning towards. For hard lockups (which is where CONFIG_WATCHDOG comes in handy), you're likely not going to get any output anyways. In either case, wiggling this in to CONFIG_WATCHDOG is very much changing the meaning of what CONFIG_WATCHDOG means today, and doesn't seem to buy us anything. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
