On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:59:00AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> 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?
Yes, please. Thanks!
Cheers,
Don
