Hello Wim,
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:18:31PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hello,
>
> maybe it's arguable if the newly introduced way to define
> WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT and WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT_INIT_STATUS is really simpler.
> But at least it's five lines shorter and makes the questionable naming
> of cpp symbols more obvious. (Who can tell the difference between
> the semantic of WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT and WDOG_NO_WAY_OUT without further
> checking?)
Do you consider applying this patch?
Uwe
> include/linux/watchdog.h | 9 ++-------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/watchdog.h b/include/linux/watchdog.h
> index 2a3038ee17a3..395b70e0eccf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/watchdog.h
> +++ b/include/linux/watchdog.h
> @@ -97,13 +97,8 @@ struct watchdog_device {
> #define WDOG_UNREGISTERED 4 /* Has the device been unregistered */
> };
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT
> -#define WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT 1
> -#define WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT_INIT_STATUS (1 << WDOG_NO_WAY_OUT)
> -#else
> -#define WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT 0
> -#define WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT_INIT_STATUS 0
> -#endif
> +#define WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT)
> +#define WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT_INIT_STATUS (WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT << WDOG_NO_WAY_OUT)
>
> /* Use the following function to check whether or not the watchdog is active */
> static inline bool watchdog_active(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
> --
> 2.1.0
>
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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
