Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 16:17:54 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, x86@kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 24/29] watchdog/hardlockup: Use parse_option_str() to
 handle "nmi_watchdog"
Message-ID: <20220513231754.GB9074@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
References: <20220506000008.30892-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <20220506000008.30892-25-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <1652179333.fnu2fjiffn.astroid@bobo.none>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1652179333.fnu2fjiffn.astroid@bobo.none>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 08:46:41PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Ricardo Neri's message of May 6, 2022 10:00 am:
> > Prepare hardlockup_panic_setup() to handle a comma-separated list of
> > options. Thus, it can continue parsing its own command-line options while
> > ignoring parameters that are relevant only to specific implementations of
> > the hardlockup detector. Such implementations may use an early_param to
> > parse their own options.
> 
> It can't really handle comma separated list though, until the next
> patch. nmi_watchdog=panic,0 does not make sense, so you lost error
> handling of that.

Yes that is true. All possible combinations need to be checked.

> 
> And is it kosher to double handle options like this? I'm sure it
> happens but it's ugly.
> 
> Would you consider just add a new option for x86 and avoid changing
> this? Less code and patches.

Sure, I can not modify this code and add a x86-specific command-line
option.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo