Chris,
I'd like to comment on the following proposed change:
+int proc_dowatchdog_exclude(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
+ void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
+{
+ int err;
+
+ mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
+ err = proc_do_large_bitmap(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
+ if (!err && write && watchdog_user_enabled) {
+ watchdog_disable_all_cpus();
+ watchdog_enable_all_cpus(false);
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
+ return err;
+}
The watchdog mechanism is enabled if watchdog_user_enabled and watchdog_thresh
are both non-zero. Hence, I think the if-statement in the above snippet of code
should look like this:
if (!err && write && watchdog_user_enabled && watchdog_thresh)
Please see proc_dowatchdog() which checks the content of both variables before
it calls watchdog_enable_all_cpus():
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/watchdog.c?id=refs/tags/v4.0-rc6#n682
For completeness, I'd also like to point out that if the patch series at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/5/626 gets accepted upstream, the if-statement
will have to be adjusted. I think it should then look like this:
if (!err && write && watchdog_enabled && watchdog_thresh) {
watchdog_disable_all_cpus();
watchdog_enable_all_cpus();
}
Please see proc_watchdog_update() here which is similar to the above.
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/watchdog.c?id=refs/tags/next-20150402#n710
Regards,
Uli
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
