Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> These patches add new notifier function and implement it to
>> panic_notifier_list.
>> We used the hardcoded notifier chain so far, but it was not flexible. New
>> notifier is very flexible, because user can change a list of order by
>> debugfs.
>
> How is the lack of flexibility a problem?
> Specifics please.
Please read this again.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/797220?do=post_view_threaded#797220
Keith Owen said,
> My stance is that _all_ the RAS tools (kdb, kgdb, nlkd, netdump, lkcd,
> crash, kdump etc.) should be using a common interface that safely puts
> the entire system in a stopped state and saves the state of each cpu.
> Then each tool can do what it likes, instead of every RAS tool doing
> its own thing and they all conflict with each other, which is why this
> thread started.
>
> It is not the kernel's job to decide which RAS tool runs first, second
> etc., it is the user's decision to set that policy. Different sites
> will want different orders, some will say "go straight to kdump", other
> sites will want to invoke a debugger first. Sites must be able to
> define that policy, but we hard code the policy into the kernel.
I agreed with him and I made new notifier function.
>
> My impression is that the purpose of this patchset is to build
> infrastructure to sort out a conflict between kdb and the kexec code,
> which it does not do, and it can not do if it does not own up to
> it's real purpose.
My motivation does not change. But I don't think kdump have to use notifer.
I want to resolve this adopting the way which satisfy all users.
Thanks,
Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
|