Re: [PATCH] watchdog: simplify definitions of WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT(_INIT_STATUS)?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:49:55PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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?
> 
At least I have it in my watchdog-next branch.

Guenter
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux