[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/4] watchdog: hpwdt: Don't disable watchdog on NMI
On 2/7/19 5:26 PM, Jerry Hoemann wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 09:55:29AM +0500, Ivan Mironov wrote:
>> On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 19:27 -0700, Jerry Hoemann wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:36:14AM +0500, Ivan Mironov wrote:
>> Somehow I missed the whole pretimout thing when reading about the
>> watchdog API. Thanks for clarification, now code makes much more sense
>> =).
>> Still, I do not really understand the point of enabling of kdump
>> support in hpwdt driver by default while kdump is not enabled by
>> default.
> Kdump is enabled by default by our Distro partners.
> HPE works with distro partners to deliver a validated system which we support.
> The ability to generate crash dumps is one of the means we use to
> support our customers. Even if kdump isn't configured, panic will
> at least print stack trace to indicate system activity.
>> Also, existing code may call hpwdt_stop() (and thus break watchdog)
>> even if pretimout is disabled.
>> Also, "panic=N" option is not providing a way to *not* panic on NMI
>> unrelated with iLO. This could be circumvented by blacklisting the
>> hpwdt module entirely, but normal watchdog functionality would be lost
>> then.
> panic=N provides for reset upon receipt of NMI if user wants timeout
> to reset system but not a crash dump.
> The panic is for error containment. On the legacy systems within
> the context of hpwdt_pretimeout we cannot determine if the error
> is recoverable or not. So, we have little choice but to panic.
>> It is possible to rebuild kernel without HPWDT_NMI_DECODING (which is
>> enabled in Fedora, for example). But it is nearly impossible to come to
>> this solution without examining the source code, because description of
>> this option does not mention that it is really about pretimout support
>> and panics and not about something else...
> The name is not the best given its current use, but I'm not sure a
> name change would be allowed.

I would be open to accepting an improved help text of this configuration
option. I am not going to entertain (or accept) a name change.
That would open up a can of worms, with everyone in the world requesting
name changes. That would be pretty pointless and make the kernel all but


> However, I will send a patch to update the documentation in Kconfig.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-08 05:18    [W:0.062 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site