> -----Original Message----- > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:07 AM > To: Kim, Milo > Cc: wim@xxxxxxxxx; linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce new watchdog AUTOSTART > option > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:43:31AM +0000, Kim, Milo wrote: > > Hi Guenter > > > > > I really don't like that idea. It defeats a significant part of the > > > purpose > > > for having a watchdog, which is to prevent user-space hangups. > > > > > > To make this a driver option is even more odd - it forces every > user of > > > this > > > driver to use it in-kernel only, and makes /dev/watchdog quite > useless. > > > > > > I mean, really, if you have such a watchdog, what is the point of > using > > > the > > > watchdog infrastructure in the first place ? Just make it a kernel > > > thread or > > > timer-activated platform code which pings your watchdog once in a > while. > > > No > > > need to get the watchdog infrastructure involved in the first place. > > > > > > Am I missing something ? > > > > I wanted to enable the watchdog timer without the watchdog > application for > > making sure the system alive. > > However, I think I misunderstood the purpose of the watchdog driver. > > The watchdog is for detecting user-space hangups rather than kernel > stall. > > Is it correct? If yes, this patch is totally wrong. > > > Correct. After all, if the kernel stalls, user space will stall as well, > so by > covering user space it covers both. Covering kernel alone doesn't help > much, > since most of the stalls (at least in my experience) happen in user > space. Got it. I nearly spoiled it due to my misunderstanding ;) Many thanks! Milo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
