In message <20061210160457.W42195_at_localhost>, Nick Hibma writes: >>> cognet_at_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. > >~he implementation of the WD_PASSIVE part is on my list. > >I don't quite agree with you on the kernel taking over though. When >testing watchdogs you should be able to see that you could not disarm >it, as you would otherwise get mysterious hard reboots. I'd rather have >watchdogd refuse to exit if it cannot disarm the watchdog. I'll put that >on my list too. Watchdog[d](8) may not be the only program that calls the ioctl, in many embedded apps the central application will do so itself. It seems to me a much more intuitive behaviour if the kernel takes over the job of patting the offending piece of hardware. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk_at_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.Received on Sun Dec 10 2006 - 14:35:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:03 UTC