From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752416Ab0C1DEj (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:04:39 -0400 Received: from lobo.ruivo.org ([173.14.175.98]:56099 "EHLO lobo.ruivo.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752087Ab0C1DEi (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:04:38 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1044 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:04:38 EDT Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:46:50 -0400 From: Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho To: Don Zickus Cc: mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, gorcunov@gmail.com, aris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup Message-ID: <20100328024650.GA26522@jake.ruivo.org> References: <20100323213338.GA29170@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100323213338.GA29170@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Don, > +/* deprecated */ > +static int __init nosoftlockup_setup(char *str) > +{ > + no_watchdog = 1; > + return 1; > +} > +__setup("nosoftlockup", nosoftlockup_setup); > +static int __init nonmi_watchdog_setup(char *str) > +{ > + no_watchdog = 1; > + return 1; > +} > +__setup("nonmi_watchdog", nonmi_watchdog_setup); didn't you just add nonmi_watchdog parameter? I don't think there's a reason to keep compatibility here. the rest of the patch looks fine to me -- Aristeu