Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function

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