Hello Guenter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 08:45:05AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 08:11 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:03:13AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>thanks a lot for the Ack. I have v6 in the works, which changes recording
> >>of last_keepalive
Hi Uwe,
On 11/24/2015 08:11 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Guenter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:03:13AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
thanks a lot for the Ack. I have v6 in the works, which changes recording
of last_keepalive when the watchdog is started. Does your Ack include that
change, or
Hello Guenter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:03:13AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> thanks a lot for the Ack. I have v6 in the works, which changes recording
> of last_keepalive when the watchdog is started. Does your Ack include that
> change, or do you prefer to have another look ?
this change is
On 11/23/2015 11:16 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Guenter,
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Introduce an optional hardware maximum timeout in the watchdog core.
The hardware maximum timeout can be lower than the maximum timeout.
Drivers can set the maximum
Hello Guenter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 08:45:05AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 08:11 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:03:13AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>thanks a lot for the Ack. I have v6 in the works, which changes recording
> >>of last_keepalive
Hello Guenter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:03:13AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> thanks a lot for the Ack. I have v6 in the works, which changes recording
> of last_keepalive when the watchdog is started. Does your Ack include that
> change, or do you prefer to have another look ?
this change is
Hi Uwe,
On 11/24/2015 08:11 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Guenter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:03:13AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
thanks a lot for the Ack. I have v6 in the works, which changes recording
of last_keepalive when the watchdog is started. Does your Ack include that
change, or
On 11/23/2015 11:16 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Guenter,
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Introduce an optional hardware maximum timeout in the watchdog core.
The hardware maximum timeout can be lower than the maximum timeout.
Drivers can set the maximum
Hello Guenter,
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Introduce an optional hardware maximum timeout in the watchdog core.
> The hardware maximum timeout can be lower than the maximum timeout.
>
> Drivers can set the maximum hardware timeout value in the watchdog data
>
Hi Uwe,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:26:08PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Guenter,
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:14:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/22/2015 11:53 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > >On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >>@@ -160,7
Hello Guenter,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:14:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/22/2015 11:53 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>@@ -160,7 +176,11 @@ they are supported. These optional routines/operations
> >>are:
> >>and
Hi Uwe,
On 11/22/2015 11:53 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Guenter,
first of all thanks for picking this series up again.
I think all of this feedback doesn't need to stop your patches getting
in. It should all be possible to improve afterwards.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800,
Hello Guenter,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:14:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/22/2015 11:53 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>@@ -160,7 +176,11 @@ they are supported. These optional routines/operations
> >>are:
> >>and
Hi Uwe,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:26:08PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Guenter,
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:14:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/22/2015 11:53 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > >On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >>@@ -160,7
Hello Guenter,
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Introduce an optional hardware maximum timeout in the watchdog core.
> The hardware maximum timeout can be lower than the maximum timeout.
>
> Drivers can set the maximum hardware timeout value in the watchdog data
>
Hi Uwe,
On 11/22/2015 11:53 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Guenter,
first of all thanks for picking this series up again.
I think all of this feedback doesn't need to stop your patches getting
in. It should all be possible to improve afterwards.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800,
Hello Guenter,
first of all thanks for picking this series up again.
I think all of this feedback doesn't need to stop your patches getting
in. It should all be possible to improve afterwards.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> @@ -160,7 +176,11 @@ they are
Introduce an optional hardware maximum timeout in the watchdog core.
The hardware maximum timeout can be lower than the maximum timeout.
Drivers can set the maximum hardware timeout value in the watchdog data
structure. If the configured timeout exceeds the maximum hardware timeout,
the watchdog
Hello Guenter,
first of all thanks for picking this series up again.
I think all of this feedback doesn't need to stop your patches getting
in. It should all be possible to improve afterwards.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 07:20:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> @@ -160,7 +176,11 @@ they are
Introduce an optional hardware maximum timeout in the watchdog core.
The hardware maximum timeout can be lower than the maximum timeout.
Drivers can set the maximum hardware timeout value in the watchdog data
structure. If the configured timeout exceeds the maximum hardware timeout,
the watchdog
20 matches
Mail list logo
