Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:17:32 -0400 (EDT) | From | Rob Radez <> | Subject | Re: 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.
Regards, Rob Radez
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |