Hi Timur,
I have said this before:
in the first timeout, just panic() maybe not enough, in [RFC] version of my patchset, I offer some option as "preaction" to use, but for simplifying the first version of driver, I have deleted them. but at least, panic() is far more useful than a simple reset. at least, it can provide the context of the crashed system to admin.
If you want to warn user space, that will make driver more complicated, I don't think that is a good choose for a first version. but we can find a way to improve this later
On 24 May 2015 at 23:02, Timur Tabi timur@codeaurora.org wrote:
Fu Wei wrote:
If pretimeout concept assumes that there are two timers, I misunderstand the "pretimeout", then I will delete the pretimeout immediately.
In my opinion, calling panic() on a pre-timeout is not useful, because that's really just a normal timeout. If there were a way to "warn" user space that a timeout is about to occur, without a panic or reset, then that might be useful. But as far as I can see, all you're doing is redefining the word "timeout".
-- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.