Vivek Goyal wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>  > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
>>> and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
>>>
>>> Few things come to mind.
>>>
>>> - Why there is a separate panic_notifier_list? Can't it be merged with
>>>   die_chain? die_val already got one of the event type as PANIC. If there
>>>   are no specific reasons then we should merge the two lists. Registering
>>>   RAS tools on a single list is easier.
>> I think it is difficult, because die_chain is defined by each architecture.
>>
> 
> I think die_chain is arch independent definition (kernel/die_notifier.c)? 
> But anyway, to begin with it can be done only for panic_notifier.

I think die_val (notify_die() argument) values are arch independent.
They are defined in include/asm-<arch>/kdebug.h.

Your idea is good, but I think it has very large impact. It is very hard to fix
them at the same time. So, how about putting off merging two lists?

 > I think Bernhard's suggestion looks better here. I noticed that
quoted text
> /sys/kernel/debug is already present. So how about following.
> 
> /sys/kernel/debug/kdump/priority
> /sys/kernel/debug/kdb/priority
> /sys/kernel/debug/IPMI/priority

Good.

quoted text
> 
> I think at some point of time we shall have to create another file say
> description.
> 
> /sys/kernel/debug/IPMI/description
> 
> Which can tell what does this tool do? Other a user might not have any
> clue how to prioritize various things.

Good idea. :-)

Thanks
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/