Re: [RFC V2 17/21] watchdog/dev: Add tracepoints

[Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/17/22 19:17, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/17/22 09:49, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/02/2022 18:27, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 2/17/22 08:27, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/22 17:01, Peter.Enderborg@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/22 11:45, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>>>>>> Add a set of tracepoints, enabling the observability of the watchdog
>>>>>> device interactions with user-space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The events are:
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_open
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_close
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_start
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_stop
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_set_timeout
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_ping
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_nowayout
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_set_keep_alive
>>>>>>      watchdog:watchdog_keep_alive
>>>>>
>>>>> Some watchdogs have a bark functionality, I think it should be event
>>>>> for that too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand. The problems is that I do not see the bark abstraction
>>>> in the
>>>> watchdog_dev layer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't even know what "bark functionality" means. A new term for
>>> pretimeout ?
>>> Something else ?
>>
>>> From my understanding the bark timeout is actually the pretimeout
>> whereas the bite timeout is the actual timeout.
>> I think in the Kernel ftwdt010_wdt and qcom-wdt are bark/bite WTDs
>>
> 
> If that is the case, I would prefer if we could stick to existing
> terminology to avoid issues like "I do not see the bark abstraction".

I agree! I am using the terminology from watchdog dev. Like, I hear the term
"pet" for the "ping", I used "ping."

-- Daniel