Hi Wolfram,
On 05.06.2016 12:48, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 03:37:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:41:36PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> No doubt about that. I had some ideas and thought it is easier to talk
>>> over code. If you
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 03:37:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:41:36PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >
> > No doubt about that. I had some ideas and thought it is easier to talk
> > over code. If you want to rebase it, too, I'd be happy to check what you
> >
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:41:36PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> No doubt about that. I had some ideas and thought it is easier to talk
> over code. If you want to rebase it, too, I'd be happy to check what you
> came up with to solve the problems. I might still argue that I prefer
> the
Hi Vladimir,
great to see you still have capacity for this series :)
> The thing is that I'm particularly interested in
>
> 1) sleeping governors,
> 2) userspace notification of any appropriate kind, but preferably not by
>adding a clumsy .poll callback, uevent is the best IMHO.
I am
Hi Wolfram,
On 25.05.2016 16:32, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> From: Wolfram Sang
>
> The change adds a simple watchdog pretimeout framework infrastructure,
> its purpose is to allow users to select a desired handling of watchdog
> pretimeout events, which may be
From: Wolfram Sang
The change adds a simple watchdog pretimeout framework infrastructure,
its purpose is to allow users to select a desired handling of watchdog
pretimeout events, which may be generated by a watchdog driver.
By design every watchdog pretimeout