On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:21:17 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:57:12 +1000 Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
> > For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
> > them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog()
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 11:21:17 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:57:12 +1000 Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
> > For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
> > them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have
> > them provide
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:57:12 +1000 Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
> them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have
> them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog().
>
> This gives the generic code more
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:57:12 +1000 Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
> them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have
> them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog().
>
> This gives the generic code more flexibility in
For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have
them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog().
This gives the generic code more flexibility in implementing this
function, and arch implementations don't miss out on
For architectures that define HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG, instead of having
them provide the complete touch_nmi_watchdog() function, just have
them provide arch_touch_nmi_watchdog().
This gives the generic code more flexibility in implementing this
function, and arch implementations don't miss out on
6 matches
Mail list logo