Hi Timur, I have said this before: in the first timeout, just panic() maybe not enough, in [RFC] version of my patchset, I offer some option as "preaction" to use, but for simplifying the first version of driver, I have deleted them. but at least, panic() is far more useful than a simple reset. at least, it can provide the context of the crashed system to admin. If you want to warn user space, that will make driver more complicated, I don't think that is a good choose for a first version. but we can find a way to improve this later On 24 May 2015 at 23:02, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> If pretimeout concept assumes that there are two timers, I >> misunderstand the "pretimeout", then I will delete the pretimeout >> immediately. > > > In my opinion, calling panic() on a pre-timeout is not useful, because > that's really just a normal timeout. If there were a way to "warn" user > space that a timeout is about to occur, without a panic or reset, then that > might be useful. But as far as I can see, all you're doing is redefining > the word "timeout". > > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the > Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation. -- 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
