Re: Further WatchDog Updates

[Rob Radez]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Corey Minyard wrote:

> Why is that too fine grained?  You would just set the values from 1000
> to 255000 instead of 1 to 255, and round up.
>
> I have a board that sets the time value in wierd times (like 225ms,
> 450ms, 900ms, 1800ms, 3600ms, etc.).  I wouldn't be against the
> WDIOS_TIMEINMILLI option, but milliseconds should be good enough for anyone.

Yet Another Brainfart.  I've been having a lot of them recently.

I don't feel comfortable changing the API that much in a stable kernel
series.  Also, some other boards that have very small timeout windows
emulate a larger userspace timeout since it's quite possible that a
process won't get scheduled every 250ms.  I guess the only reason I can see
for such a small timeout window is if one needs 99.9999% uptime and the 29
extra seconds that the watchdog waits before kicking off is important.

Regards,
Rob Radez