Slight interface change on the watchdog fido
Nick Hibma
nick at van-laarhoven.org
Sun Dec 10 07:10:26 PST 2006
>> 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.
Nick
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list