On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:00, Joel Becker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:50:49PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > It happens without anybody ever using hangcheck for anything. It's just > > compiled in. You shouldn't assume everybody cares about that hang checking > > thing just because the driver is loaded. > > Without disagreeing with you, why would someone compile in or > load hangcheck if they didn't want it? I mean the general > "distro-provided" case, etc. The random kernel hacker might try it, but > they can also learn why they don't want to. At some point i was still under the dillusion it would be useful for something so it ended up in an older defconfig. I have since removed it, but i still come over old defconfig based configurations occassionally so I finally got rid of that bogus printk. > > All the other watchdogs in Linux are only active when at least one person > > ever opened the device. That ought be right behaviour for hangcheck too. > > The above said, I'm going to think about this issue. It will be > an additional pain for existing users (especially already-in-use > software that expects it to Just Work), but that doesn't mean it's a bad > idea. > The interface won't be open(2), though. This need not rely on a > process. Perhaps a sysfs knob. Ok I don't care as long as I don't have to ever see that printk again. -Andi - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-x86_64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
