On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:51:22 -0400
Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:04:01PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> > > /* boot commands */
> > > /*
> > > * Should we panic when a soft-lockup or hard-lockup occurs:
> > > @@ -69,9 +73,6 @@ static int __init hardlockup_panic_setup(char *str)
> > > return 1;
> > > }
> > > __setup("nmi_watchdog=", hardlockup_panic_setup);
> > > -
> > > -#else
> > > -unsigned long __read_mostly watchdog_enabled = SOFT_WATCHDOG_ENABLED;
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> >
> > Hmm, I guess I missed this because sparc parses nmi_watchdog=, but it
> > also relies on the watchdog_enabled value.
> >
> > I guess I can fold your incremental patch in. I hope we could get
> > sparc quickly to adopt the complate HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH soon
> > afterwards though, so we only have 2 cases -- complete hardlockup
> > detector, or the very bare minimum NMI_WATCHDOG.
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> I agree. Let's move forward with this temp fix just to get things in the
> kernel for initial testing. Then follow up with a cleanup patch. The idea
> is we can always revert the cleanup patch if things still don't quite work.
>
> Thoughts?
Hi Don,
Yeah that sounds good to me. Would you like me to re-test things
and resend the series?
Thanks,
Nick
