Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:35:40 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org> Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT Mailing List <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Slight interface change on the watchdog fido Message-ID: <13532.1165764940@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:10:23 %2B0100." <20061210160457.W42195@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20061210160457.W42195@localhost>, Nick Hibma writes: >>> 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. Watchdog[d](8) may not be the only program that calls the ioctl, in many embedded apps the central application will do so itself. It seems to me a much more intuitive behaviour if the kernel takes over the job of patting the offending piece of hardware. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13532.1165764940>