From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]:60995 "EHLO mail-pd0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750807AbaEBXUu (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 19:20:50 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g10so5305394pdj.17 for ; Fri, 02 May 2014 16:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 16:20:42 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Corey Minyard Cc: Don Zickus , openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ipmi watchdog questions Message-ID: <20140502232042.GB5157@roeck-us.net> References: <20140501135832.GE61249@redhat.com> <5362E8FA.9050700@acm.org> <5362F0B0.4030405@roeck-us.net> <5363213D.7060701@acm.org> <53639AFF.40206@roeck-us.net> <20140502164424.GH198341@redhat.com> <5363D34B.9000006@roeck-us.net> <20140502174650.GI198341@redhat.com> <5364138C.1050208@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5364138C.1050208@acm.org> Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 04:52:12PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote: [ ... ] > > I do agree that the driver should be moved over to use the framework. > Implementing read/poll should be easy in the framework. > If it isn't essential, I would prefer to drop it for now. Otherwise, you'll have to convince Wim to accept it. I am personally not convinced that it is worthwhile. Eother case, the core changes should be a separate patch (or set of patches), so the work can be independent of each other. [ We might want to explore if a sysfs attribute would make more sense than the poll/fasync changes, for example ] In this context, does the driver have to reside in the ipmi directory ? It would be better to have it in the watchdog directory; that would ensure that the watchdog maintainer is involved if there are changes. Guenter