In message <20061210110419.H42195@localhost>, Nick Hibma writes: > cognet@freebsd.org i80321_wdog.c (*) >(*) The i80321_wdog.c cannot be disarmed. Is this correct? If true, then this is a poster-child for the WD_PASSIVE need, the idea being that if userland says "I'll not pat the dog anymore" and the hardware cannot be disabled, the kernel shoul do it. >- If the timeout value passed is >0 and acceptable arm the watchdog and set the >*error to 0 (a watchdog is armed). Agreed, the WD_ACTIVE/WD_PASSIVE shouldn't matter to the drivers. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"