On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:16:38PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 30/07/2014 15:43, Don Zickus ha scritto: > >> > Nice catch. Looks like this will need a v2. Paolo, do we have a > >> > consensus on the proc echoing? Or should that be revisited in the v2 as > >> > well? > > As discussed privately, how about something like this to handle that case: > > (applied on top of these patches) > > Don, what do you think about proc? > > My opinion is still what I mentioned earlier in the thread, i.e. that if > the file says "1", writing "0" and then "1" should not constitute a > change WRT to the initial state. > I can agree. The problem is there are two things this proc value controls, softlockup and hardlockup. I have always tried to keep the both disabled or enabled together. This patchset tries to separate them for an edge case. Hence the proc value becomes slightly confusing. I don't know the right way to solve this without introducing more proc values. We have /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog and /proc/sys/kernel/watchdog which point to the same internal variable. Do I separate them and have 'nmi_watchdog' just mean hardlockup and 'watchdog' mean softlockup? Then we can be clear on what the output is. Or does 'watchdog' represent a superset of 'nmi_watchdog' && softlockup? That is where the confusion lies. Cheers, Don -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
