Kicking the dog -- how do you use watchdog timers?

Hans-Bernhard Br&ouml;ker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> writes:

> Am 13.05.2016 um 05:09 schrieb Randy Yates:
>> Hans-Bernhard Br&ouml;ker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> writes:
>
>>> Am 11.05.2016 um 08:17 schrieb Tim Wescott:
>>>> Randy's point, I think, is that if something is _broken_, a reset isn't
>>>> going to un-break it.
>
>>> Non-reset is not going to, either.
>
>> In general that is a logical fallacy.
>
> So a _broken_ system will be fixed by not doing a reset; really?
>
>> Consider a situation where one section of the code, let's say one
>> thread, hangs because of broken hardware, but other threads are still
>> doing useful work, e.g., transmitting status information up to the
>> cloud.
>
> Then that won't be fixed by not doing a reset.  Just like I said.

Hans,

The scenario I constructed illustrates an instance where not doing a
reset results in less-broken behavior than resetting would. So yes, it's
still broken if you do a reset, but a reset breaks it "harder." 

You statement implies (I think) that doing a reset won't do any more
harm than not doing a reset, and may do some good. That implication is a
fallacy in that it is not true in certain (albeit pathological, but
possible) cases.

So yes, your assertion as stated above is true. I should have been more
precise in my refutation and explained that it is the implication under
the assumption of degrees of brokenness that is a fallacy. 
-- 
Randy Yates, DSP/Embedded Firmware Developer
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com