From: Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:25:50 -0600 > Hi Dave, > > On 11/21/2016 12:42 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:13:43 -0700 >> >>> This is an attempt to cleanup watchdog handlers. Right now, >>> kernel/watchdog.c implements both softlockup and hardlockup detectors. >>> Softlockup code is generic. Hardlockup code is arch specific. Some >>> architectures don't use hardlockup detectors. They use their own >>> watchdog >>> detectors. To make both these combination work, we have numerous >>> #ifdefs >>> in kernel/watchdog.c. >>> >>> We are trying here to make these handlers independent of each other. >>> Also provide an interface for architectures to implement their own >>> handlers. watchdog_nmi_enable and watchdog_nmi_disable will be defined >>> as weak such that architectures can override its definitions. >>> >>> Thanks to Don Zickus for his suggestions. >>> Here are our previous discussions >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/sparclinux/msg16543.html >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/sparclinux/msg16441.html >> This touches a bunch of generic code, only the third patch is sparc >> specific. >> >> Anyways have any plans to merge this via another tree or should I >> take it via sparc? If I take it via sparc I want some ACKs. > > Not sure how these things work. I have got following responses from > Andrew Morton earlier. Ok, if Andrew put it in his tree I'll just assume these changes will take that path. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
