Re: [PATCH] [2/66] x86_64: Quieten hangcheck driver

[Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:00, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:50:49PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It happens without anybody ever using hangcheck for anything. It's just
> > compiled in. You shouldn't assume everybody cares about that hang checking
> > thing just because the driver is loaded.
> 
> 	Without disagreeing with you, why would someone compile in or
> load hangcheck if they didn't want it?  I mean the general
> "distro-provided" case, etc.  The random kernel hacker might try it, but
> they can also learn why they don't want to.

At some point i was still under the dillusion it would be useful
for something so it ended up in an older defconfig. I have since
removed it, but i still come over old defconfig based configurations
occassionally so I finally got rid of that bogus printk.


> > All the other watchdogs in Linux are only active when at least one person
> > ever opened the device. That ought be right behaviour for hangcheck too.
> 	
> 	The above said, I'm going to think about this issue.  It will be
> an additional pain for existing users (especially already-in-use
> software that expects it to Just Work), but that doesn't mean it's a bad
> idea.
> 	The interface won't be open(2), though.  This need not rely on a
> process.  Perhaps a sysfs knob.

Ok I don't care as long as I don't have to ever see that printk again.

-Andi
 
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-x86_64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html