On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 09:49:07PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Great thanks for your review,
> feedback inline below :-)
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 21:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ ... ]
> >> + if (wdd->max_pretimeout && wdd->max_timeout < wdd->max_pretimeout)
> >> {
> >> + pr_info("Invalid max timeout, resetting to max
> >> pretimeout!\n");
> >> + wdd->max_timeout = wdd->max_pretimeout;
> >> + }
> >
> >
> > I am a bit concerned about the context dependency introduced here. If
> > someone calls
> > _init_pretimeout after calling init_timeout, this may result in still
> > invalid timeout
> > values.
>
> yes, that logic is not very clean, so my thought is :
> maybe we can integrate watchdog_init_timeout and watchdog_init_pretimeout,
> if maintainer agree to add pretimeout into framework.
>
I think we should just assume that Wim will accept it, and try to find
the best possible solution (or at least a good one).
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
