Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:21:20 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: "arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: enhanced watchdog. Message-ID: <1861.1358605280@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <50FA3D36.4080709@mu.org> References: <201301190604.r0J64RbW009298@svn.freebsd.org> <50FA3D36.4080709@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 -------- In message <50FA3D36.4080709@mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes: >We at iX are trying to enhance the watchdog and we think some of the >changes may benefit the community as a whole. The initial watchdog support was generalized from only two examples and therefore quite crude. I think your proposed improvements make good sense. I will generally warn you not to make things too complex though, it's important that the watchdog subsystem does not become a cause of failure on its own. Having a kernel thread which tries to get attention some delta-T before the hardware watchdog is supposed to kick in, also sounds like a good idea, but its information is going to be quite unreliable. One wish I have heard, was to be able to use multiple WD's separately, the current API sort of treats them as a redundant pool. -- 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?1861.1358605280>