Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Takenori Nagano <t-nagano at ah.jp.nec.com> 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 at ah.jp.nec.com>
