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. > - Modify Kdump to register on die_chain list. > - Modify Kdb to register on die_chain list. > - Export all the registered members of die_chain through sysfs along with > their priorities. Priorities should be modifiable. Most likely one > shall have to introduce additional field in struct notifier_block. This > field will be a string as an identifier of the user registerd. e.g > "Kdump", "Kdb" etc. > > Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and > be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their > priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist. This is my image of your proposal. - Print current order # cat /sys/class/misc/debug/panic_notifier_list priority name 1 IPMI 2 watchdog 3 Kdb 4 Kdump - change list order # echo <before> <after> > /sys/class/debug/panic_notifier_list - example # cat /sys/class/misc/debug/panic_notifier_list priority name 1 IPMI 2 watchdog 3 Kdb 4 Kdump # echo 4 1 > /sys/class/debug/panic_notifier_list priority name 1 Kdump 2 IPMI 3 watchdog 4 Kdb Is my image almost same as your thought? Thanks
