Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:03:27 +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: <12904.1165755807@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:04:39 %2B0100." <20061210110419.H42195@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20061210110419.H42195@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. >- If the timeout value passed is >0 and acceptable arm the watchdog and set the >*error to 0 (a watchdog is armed). Agreed, the WD_ACTIVE/WD_PASSIVE shouldn't matter to the drivers. -- 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?12904.1165755807>