On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:55:59 -0400 Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:28:54PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having > > them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have > > them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog(). > > > > This gives the generic code more flexibility in implementing this > > function, and arch implementations don't miss out on touching the > > softlockup watchdog or other generic details. > > The idea makes sense. I don't think you can have hld_touch_nmi_watchdog > defined with arch_touch_nmi_watchdog, so I am wondering if it makes sense to > combine them somehow. Though renaming hld_touch_nmi_watchdog to > arch_touch_nmi_watchdog sounds odd, I think it mimics the idea. Yeah I agree it's not quite right, and I think using arch_touch_nmi_watchdog would be fine for the hld, which makes sense if you think of it as a utility or library function for architectures that want a hardlockup watchdog and can use perf for it. I can change that if you prefer. BTW the 0day picked up another Kconfig compile bug, so I'll respin the series and include any changes you like. Thanks, Nick
