> Nitpick: If we consider pretimeout == timeout to be invalid, we should reject it here > as well. So this should be >=. I agree to that. > to the next version. I'd suggest to wait a bit to give Wolfram time to provide input, > though. I liked the is_visible() change right away, so these patches are fine. Guenter, what is your take on upstreaming the softdog pretimeout support? I'd think it would be good to have for testing purposes. It would also help me to upstream the busybox patch for the watchdog applet. Thanks, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
