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 Bernhard's suggestion looks better here. I noticed that > /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. > > 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
