Hi Guenter,
yes, I think it is OK for me,
Once this patchset is merged, I will try to make a new patchset just
for this integration.
On 16 May 2015 at 02:01, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch
Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct)
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021
--
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
