On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:45:02PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
quoted text
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > 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 that's fine. For the time being we can just export panic_notifier
list. die_chain is not a problem as of today as die notifiers get invoked
first and then if panic_on_oops is set, kdump is called. So all the RAS
tools registered on die_chain will get executed first.

Thanks
Vivek
-
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/