[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Further WatchDog Updates

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Corey Minyard wrote:

> Why is that too fine grained? You would just set the values from 1000
> to 255000 instead of 1 to 255, and round up.
> I have a board that sets the time value in wierd times (like 225ms,
> 450ms, 900ms, 1800ms, 3600ms, etc.). I wouldn't be against the
> WDIOS_TIMEINMILLI option, but milliseconds should be good enough for anyone.

Yet Another Brainfart. I've been having a lot of them recently.

I don't feel comfortable changing the API that much in a stable kernel
series. Also, some other boards that have very small timeout windows
emulate a larger userspace timeout since it's quite possible that a
process won't get scheduled every 250ms. I guess the only reason I can see
for such a small timeout window is if one needs 99.9999% uptime and the 29
extra seconds that the watchdog waits before kicking off is important.

Rob Radez

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.084 / U:2.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site