Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>