DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 22747723D1
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:51:22 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Babu Moger <babu.moger@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] watchdog: Split up config options
Message-ID: <20170615155122.exwji7lkurfjvmzn@redhat.com>
References: <20170603161005.279fe0ef@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
 <20170606164958.lkwy7t7xzdpxg4mp@redhat.com>
 <20170607135026.1a6129a8@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
 <20170608160502.uzp7vmr7s4fj6hjm@redhat.com>
 <20170612180739.1aa4b123@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
 <20170612204156.ov7ka2765t4gdakl@redhat.com>
 <20170614021118.4bbfd00f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
 <20170614140937.qrkajknqxldwdkv2@redhat.com>
 <fc41c166-7db1-79d2-da01-cbcb412952c9@oracle.com>
 <20170615130401.033a39dd@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170615130401.033a39dd@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170428-dirty (1.8.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1161
Lines: 34

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:04:01PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> >   /* boot commands */
> >   /*
> >    * Should we panic when a soft-lockup or hard-lockup occurs:
> > @@ -69,9 +73,6 @@ static int __init hardlockup_panic_setup(char *str)
> >          return 1;
> >   }
> >   __setup("nmi_watchdog=", hardlockup_panic_setup);
> > -
> > -#else
> > -unsigned long __read_mostly watchdog_enabled = SOFT_WATCHDOG_ENABLED;
> >   #endif
> > 
> >   #ifdef CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> 
> Hmm, I guess I missed this because sparc parses nmi_watchdog=, but it
> also relies on the watchdog_enabled value.
> 
> I guess I can fold your incremental patch in. I hope we could get
> sparc quickly to adopt the complate HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH soon
> afterwards though, so we only have 2 cases -- complete hardlockup
> detector, or the very bare minimum NMI_WATCHDOG.

Hi Nick,

I agree.  Let's move forward with this temp fix just to get things in the
kernel for initial testing.  Then follow up with a cleanup patch.  The idea
is we can always revert the cleanup patch if things still don't quite work.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Don