Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:38:05PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>
> In summary, right now co-existence of kdb with kdump seems to be your pain
> point. I would prefer that kdb just puts a break point on panic() and we move
> on. If there are more candidates down the line and these can't be easily
> executed in second kernel then we can re-visit this notification list
> mechanism.
Hi Vivek,
Thank you for your comment. :-)
I don't mind kdb and kdump problem now. Because my patches are not merged into
mainline kernel yet. If they are merged, I think how we can resolve about RAS
tools problem.
>> # ls
>> ipmi_msghandler ipmi_wdog
>> # cat ipmi_msghandler/priority
>> 200
>> # cat ipmi_wdog/priority
>> 150
>> #
>> Kernel panic - not syncing: panic
>> ipmi_msghandler : notifier calls panic_event().
>> ipmi_watchdog : notifier calls wdog_panic_handler().
>>
>> .....(reboot)
>>
>
> We also need to implement a file which can give a consolidated view. All
> the registered members and their priority.
I tried to implement it, but its impact is large. And we can get all priority
values using "ls" and "cat */priority". I'll implement it if user strongly
expects it.
ex)
# cd panic_notifier_list
# ls
ipmi_msghandler ipmi_wdog
# cat */priority
200
150
#
Thanks,
Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
|