Cc: <pete@...>, Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...>, Amit Kale <amitkale@...>, Dave Anderson <anderson@...>, <kdb@...>, <jlan@...>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:21:10 -0600 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Yes. and I re-read it.
There are several things in Keith's email that make sense:
a. all RAS tools should use a common interface
b. it's not the kernel's job to decide which RAS tool runs first
Eric makes some good points too. I'm mostly similar to Eric:
paranoid about trusting software/hardware after a panic (or oops).
So if someone wants to use multiple RAS tools on a panic event,
enabling an admin to set priorities is OK with me, but I'll only
trust the first one that is used, and even that one may have
problems. IOW, I don't see a big need to support multiple RAS
tools at one time. (speaking for myself)
Ack that.
---
~Randy
-