reset_control_rearm(9)

📦 version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

💅 reset_control_rearm(9) — the Kernel API Manual page, bestie edition ✨

okay so you're reading a kernel API manual page (that's the (9) vibe, section 9, kernel dev stuff 🧚) and honestly? this one's short and sweet. let's get into it 🫶

🌸 NAME 🌸

reset_control_rearm — lowkey the function that lets a shared reset line get re-triggered 💅 like, it's giving "second chance" energy fr fr

✨ SYNOPSIS ✨

int reset_control_rearm (struct reset_control *rstc );

🎀 ARGUMENTS 🎀

  • rstc — the reset controller. that's it, that's the whole arg. she's a struct reset_control * and she's the main character 🌟

🦋 DESCRIPTION 🦋

okay so picture this: you're on a shared reset line, right? the actual reset pulse only goes off once for the entire lifetime of the reset_control instance. one and done. no cap. 💀 except — and this is the moment — if you use this call. that's what rearm is for, bestie, it's literally the loophole 🎟️

calls to this function must be balanced with calls to reset_control_reset. yes, they're a matched set, they're a duo, they're giving complementary energies 💖 and a warning is thrown in case triggered_count ever dips below 0. so like, don't do that 🙈

consumers must not use reset_control_(de)assert on shared reset lines when reset_control_reset or reset_control_rearm have been used. that's a hard no, bestie, we do not mix those, it's not the vibe, periodt 🔥

oh and if rstc is NULL? the function just returns 0. iconic lazy queen behavior honestly, she said "not my problem, here's a zero" 🫶

⚠️ real talk — that balanced-calls rule and the (de)assert restriction are not suggestions. ignore them and you get warnings and broken vibes. you've been warned 💅

🌈 SEE ALSO 🌈

and that's the whole page, bestie, you ate that 🍓 go forth and rearm responsibly 💜

sign-off szn 🎀 — this one comes from the source tree at ./drivers/reset, dated October 2026, and it's the reset_control_rearm(9) page, so now you know the lore ⭐

📦 where this page comes from