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

Started by Tim Wescott May 9, 2016
Hans-Bernhard Br&ouml;ker <> writes:

> Am 13.05.2016 um 05:09 schrieb Randy Yates: >> Hans-Bernhard Br&ouml;ker <> 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