Subject: [PATCHv7 0/8] watchdog: Extend kernel API and add early_timeout_sec feature

From: [email-masked] (Timo Kokkonen)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 11:23:59 +0300

On 06.05.2015 10:48, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:26:07AM +0300, Timo Kokkonen wrote:
>> On 05.05.2015 16:50, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I talked to Marc Kleine-Budde about your approach, thought a bit more
>>> about it and want to share a few thoughts with you.
>>>
>>> Actually your series addresses three different problems
>>>
>>>   a) some watchdog hardware isn't stoppable;
>>>   b) some watchdog hardware has short maximal timeout;
>>>   c) what to do with a watchdog that is already running at probe time?
>>>
>>> The common solution is to add a mid-layer between userspace and the
>>> driver that bridges the possible hardware limitations when userspace
>>> wants to stop the watchdog or set a big timeout value. c) is a bit
>>> different but could make use of the infrastructure that is introduced
>>> while fixing a+b). The main difference between a+b) and c) is that for
>>> c) you have to introduce some policy. If the series were mine I'd first
>>> do three commits that address a), b) and c) each. Then convert drivers
>>> to it.
>>
>> The infrastructure needed for both a and b is the same, the actual
>> code to implement either a or b is also touching the same functions
>> and quite slim, so I think it may not be feasible to separate those
>> in their own patches. But I'll think about it and see if logical
>> separation makes sense.
> Yeah, probably you have to actually try it to see if it's sensible.
>
>>> Guenter and I already said something similar, but I will eventually
>>> repeat it here more explicitly: When introducing a midlayer that
>>> abstracts between hardware and it's users the IMHO most important thing
>>> to get right is to be explicit about which side of a midlayer you're
>>> currently working at. That is, be explicit about watchdog_is_running:
>>> Does it mean the hardware is running, or does userspace believe the
>>> watchdog to be active? Same for timeout, stoppable etc.pp.
>>
>> Yes, I agree. Thanks for clarifying this. I will keep this in mind
>> and try to be explicit when naming functions and variables. The best
>> way would be to also rename the existing variables too, but that
>> would also touch all the existing drivers. Keeping the current
>> naming scheme in place no doubt is less explicit about which side of
>> the new midlayer they are working on. But luckily the logic of the
>> existing driver doesn't change, they are all exposing things
>> directly to userland and they can be documented as is. The new
>> variables and functions add interfaces only between the new midlayer
>> and HW, so they are explicit as well. So I think it is a fair
>> compromise to leave all existing interface towards the user space as
>> is.
> Maybe a good first step before addressing a+b+c) is to cleanup the
> naming? Not sure how well this works though.
>

I'm sure it can be done. I'll probably should use coccinelle to get it 
right as I don't really trust sed alone is good enough.. And I may not 
be able to compile test all drivers, let alone run any other testing. 
There are 80+ drivers that I'd probably need to touch.. It is a lot of 
code churn but still a trivial variable rename. If you are willing to 
accept such a patch, then I will see how it can be done.

Although, are there any other variables besides timeout and min_timeout 
that we need to change? The timeout would become sw_timeout and 
min_timeout would be hw_min_timeout. Maybe watchdog_active() could be 
renamed to watchdog_device_open() and then add new watchdog_hw_running() 
to check whether the watchdog HW really is running or not.

So, two existing variable renames and one existing function rename. Or 
if no rename, then just document thoroughly how they work now and avoid 
excess code churn.

>>> When you consider changing the unit the watchdog core is using, why not
>>> change to nano seconds and 64 bit variables? You might be able to copy
>>> some algorithms and ideas from the timer core that uses these.
>>
>> Yes, sounds like a good idea. I will look into it.
> I wouldn't be surprised if you had to build a parallel watchdog device
> model for that and assert that both work until all drivers are converted
> to the new model. Sounds like fun :-)

I just realized that we were talking about changing the time stamp model 
for the core entirely, not just the new model... Which is much more 
complicated. Damn.

Well I will think about it. There is not much new that I'm adding here 
now. I'm hoping it could be done so that we just need to fill couple of 
new variables in the driver and call a new init function to set up the 
rest of the parameters and then clean up unneeded functionality. And the 
core changes are really not that big either.

What I probably should do at least is to mark clearly or maybe factor 
out the places where we deal with the old drivers and the deprecated 
variables. Then this code could be removed easily once there no longer 
is need for it. But I will keep on thinking it as I rework the series..

Thanks,
-Timo