On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:45:02PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote: > 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
