# Re: \[PATCH 06/10\] watchdog/buddy: Cleanup how watchdog\_buddy\_check\_hardlockup() is called

- From: Petr Mladek \<pmladek@suse.com\>
- Date: 2023-05-30 14:56:34 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2023/05/2214850
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2023/05/2211972/t.md

```text
On Fri 2023-05-26 18:41:36, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In the patch ("watchdog/hardlockup: detect hard lockups using
> secondary (buddy) CPUs"), we added a call from the common watchdog.c
> file into the buddy. That call could be done more cleanly.
> Specifically:
> 1. If we move the call into watchdog_hardlockup_kick() then it keeps
>    watchdog_timer_fn() simpler.
> 2. We don't need to pass an "unsigned long" to the buddy for the timer
>    count. In the patch ("watchdog/hardlockup: add a "cpu" param to
>    watchdog_hardlockup_check()") the count was changed to "atomic_t"
>    which is backed by an int, so we should match types.
> 
> Suggested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>


The change looks fine:

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

That said, I would prefer to squash it into the patch ("watchdog/hardlockup:
detect hard lockups using secondary (buddy) CPUs"). It would remove
some back and forth churn in the git history. But it is up to Andrew.

Best Regards,
Petr
```