Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> I'd like to see this patch implement/fix touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog
> and touch_softlockup_watchdog to mimic touch_nmi_watchdog's behaviour.
Why? Is that more correct? It seems to me that you're interested in
whether a specific CPU has gone and locked up. If touching the watchdog
makes it update all CPU timestamps, then you'll hide the fact that other
CPUs have locked up, won't it?
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
