Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:17:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:17:35 -0400 Received: from ool-182d14cd.dyn.optonline.net ([24.45.20.205]:49927 "HELO osinvestor.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:17:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:17:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Radez X-X-Sender: To: Corey Minyard cc: Subject: Re: Further WatchDog Updates In-Reply-To: <3CB2EBC7.4010207@acm.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Corey Minyard wrote: > Why is that too fine grained? You would just set the values from 1000 > to 255000 instead of 1 to 255, and round up. > > I have a board that sets the time value in wierd times (like 225ms, > 450ms, 900ms, 1800ms, 3600ms, etc.). I wouldn't be against the > WDIOS_TIMEINMILLI option, but milliseconds should be good enough for anyone. Yet Another Brainfart. I've been having a lot of them recently. I don't feel comfortable changing the API that much in a stable kernel series. Also, some other boards that have very small timeout windows emulate a larger userspace timeout since it's quite possible that a process won't get scheduled every 250ms. I guess the only reason I can see for such a small timeout window is if one needs 99.9999% uptime and the 29 extra seconds that the watchdog waits before kicking off is important. Regards, Rob Radez - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/