Hi Timur,

I have said this before:

in the first timeout, just panic()  maybe not enough,  in [RFC]
version of my patchset, I offer some option as "preaction" to use, but
for simplifying the first version of driver, I have deleted them.
but at least, panic() is far more useful than a simple reset.  at
least, it can provide the context of the crashed system  to admin.

If you want to warn user space, that will make driver more
complicated, I don't think that is a good choose for a first version.
but we can find a way to improve this later

On 24 May 2015 at 23:02, Timur Tabi [off-list ref] wrote:

Fu Wei wrote:

quoted

If pretimeout concept assumes that there are two timers, I
misunderstand the "pretimeout", then I will delete the pretimeout
immediately.

In my opinion, calling panic() on a pre-timeout is not useful, because
that's really just a normal timeout.  If there were a way to "warn" user
space that a timeout is about to occur, without a panic or reset, then that
might be useful.  But as far as I can see, all you're doing is redefining
the word "timeout".


--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.

-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch
Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct)
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html