> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guenter Roeck" <li...@roeck-us.net>
> ...
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] watchdog: introduce watchdog_suspend() and
> watchdog_resume()
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 02:49:23PM +0200, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
>> This interface can be utilized to deactivate the hard and soft lockup
>> detector temporarily. Callers are expected to minimize the duration of
>> deactivation. Multiple deactivations are allowed to occur in parallel
>> but should be rare in practice.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ulrich Obergfell <uober...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/nmi.h | 2 ++
>> kernel/watchdog.c | 65
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/nmi.h b/include/linux/nmi.h
>> index f94da0e..60050c2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/nmi.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/nmi.h
>> @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ extern int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_table *, int ,
>> void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>> extern int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *, int,
>> void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>> +extern int watchdog_suspend(void);
>> +extern void watchdog_resume(void);
>
> How about nmi_watchdog_enable() and nmi_watchdog_disable() to avoid confusion
> with the watchdog subsystem ?
Guenter,
Good point. However, I would like to avoid the 'nmi_' prefix in the
function names as it could be misleading. watchdog_{suspend|resume}
affect both -the hard and soft lockup detector- so I think function
names like
lockup_detector_suspend() instead of watchdog_suspend()
lockup_detector_resume() instead of watchdog_resume()
would summarize better what these functions are intended to be used
for. The above names would also be consistent with the existing name
lockup_detector_init()
Many Thanks,
Uli
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
