Nick Piggin wrote:
>>> Is it possible to use a single bit of common code and a single
>>> notifier for these things? Or is it too difficult?
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, I can't understand your image well. I'd like to know details of
>> > your image.
>
> Rather than have each of "RAS tools" have their own notifier, and have
> the user specify the priority of the notifiers, introduce some layer
> which _knows_ that, for example, only one of these subsystems will be
> called (it could arbitrate, perhaps distinguish between destructive and
> non-destructive ones). It would need only a single notifier, but would
> then have a specific way of calling into the ras modules.
>
> Does this make sense? I guess it is a lot more work to do, so maybe your
> solution is the best one for now.
Hi Nick,
Thank you for your explanation. I understand. :-)
This is crash_stop (the common infrastructure for debug tools) by Keith Owens.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg01929.html
Is it same as your idea? I think it is very nice solution for debug tools
conflict problem.
By the way, on old notify_chain, if admin wants to change the list order, admin
have to recompile the kernel. My patches add new *generic* notify_chain which
admin can modify the list order. My patches are not only for RAS tools problem.
I'm happy if both patches are merged into mainline. :-)
Thanks,
Takenori
---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
|