Re: [uml-devel] Re: compile problem with uml-patch-2.4.22-4

[Jeff D. <jd...@ad...>]

pet...@we... said:
> Perhaps it should not have a own CONFIG_ option but should be
> triggerd by CONFIG_SOFT_WATCHDOG. 

No, because it's a hardware watchdog.

> Jeff, is there a specific reason to
> give  UML_WATCHDOG a own option?

Yes, it's a separate driver.

				Jeff