On 2017-01-13 10:11, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 2017-01-11 12:02, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> This will require input from others on the semantics.
>
> I agree, it would be nice to have others chime in on whether they'd even
> find this useful, and what semantics they'd like.
Ping.
--
Rasmus Vill
On 2017-01-11 12:02, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 12:11 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On 2017-01-10 19:08, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:02:32PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
+static unsigned open_timeout;
+module_param(open_timeout, uint, 0644);
On 01/11/2017 12:11 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On 2017-01-10 19:08, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:02:32PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
+static unsigned open_timeout;
+module_param(open_timeout, uint, 0644);
+
+static bool watchdog_past_open_deadline(struct watchdog_core_da
On 2017-01-10 19:08, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:02:32PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
+static unsigned open_timeout;
+module_param(open_timeout, uint, 0644);
+
+static bool watchdog_past_open_deadline(struct watchdog_core_data *data)
+{
+ if (!open_timeout)
+
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:02:32PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> The watchdog framework takes care of feeding a hardware watchdog until
> userspace opens /dev/watchdogN. If that never happens for some reason
> (buggy init script, corrupt root filesystem or whatnot) but the kernel
> itself is fin
