Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:11:11 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup |
| |
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:52:38AM -0400, Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:46:50PM -0400, Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho wrote: > > > Hi Don, > > > > +/* deprecated */ > > > > +static int __init nosoftlockup_setup(char *str) > > > > +{ > > > > + no_watchdog = 1; > > > > + return 1; > > > > +} > > > > +__setup("nosoftlockup", nosoftlockup_setup); > > > > +static int __init nonmi_watchdog_setup(char *str) > > > > +{ > > > > + no_watchdog = 1; > > > > + return 1; > > > > +} > > > > +__setup("nonmi_watchdog", nonmi_watchdog_setup); > > > didn't you just add nonmi_watchdog parameter? I don't think there's a reason > > > to keep compatibility here. > > > > Hmm, I think you are right. I thought I added that because it existed in > > the old nmi_watchdog setup but I can't find it. So yeah, I can drop that. > you could provide a nmi_watchdog=0 backwards compatibility and warn about > values != 0 > > -- > Aristeu >
Sorry for a long delay, I think we might need to inform a user that "lapic", "ioapic" is no longer used (perf-nmi is supposed to substitute the former nmi code in a long term right?) so that for some time period, say the whole release cycle, if lapic or ioapic, or numbers are passed to nmi_watchdog= setup option we would just print out that the parameters are deprecated and better to not use them any longer. Hm?
-- Cyrill
| |