Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:10:23 +0100 (CET) From: Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org>, FreeBSD CURRENT Mailing List <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Slight interface change on the watchdog fido Message-ID: <20061210160457.W42195@localhost> In-Reply-To: <12904.1165755807@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <12904.1165755807@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> cognet@freebsd.org i80321_wdog.c (*) >> (*) The i80321_wdog.c cannot be disarmed. Is this correct? > > If true, then this is a poster-child for the WD_PASSIVE need, the idea > being that if userland says "I'll not pat the dog anymore" and the hardware > cannot be disabled, the kernel shoul do it. ~he implementation of the WD_PASSIVE part is on my list. I don't quite agree with you on the kernel taking over though. When testing watchdogs you should be able to see that you could not disarm it, as you would otherwise get mysterious hard reboots. I'd rather have watchdogd refuse to exit if it cannot disarm the watchdog. I'll put that on my list too. Nick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061210160457.W42195>