Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:38:05PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote: > > In summary, right now co-existence of kdb with kdump seems to be your pain > point. I would prefer that kdb just puts a break point on panic() and we move > on. If there are more candidates down the line and these can't be easily > executed in second kernel then we can re-visit this notification list > mechanism. Hi Vivek, Thank you for your comment. :-) I don't mind kdb and kdump problem now. Because my patches are not merged into mainline kernel yet. If they are merged, I think how we can resolve about RAS tools problem. >> # ls >> ipmi_msghandler ipmi_wdog >> # cat ipmi_msghandler/priority >> 200 >> # cat ipmi_wdog/priority >> 150 >> # >> Kernel panic - not syncing: panic >> ipmi_msghandler : notifier calls panic_event(). >> ipmi_watchdog : notifier calls wdog_panic_handler(). >> >> .....(reboot) >> > > We also need to implement a file which can give a consolidated view. All > the registered members and their priority. I tried to implement it, but its impact is large. And we can get all priority values using "ls" and "cat */priority". I'll implement it if user strongly expects it. ex) # cd panic_notifier_list # ls ipmi_msghandler ipmi_wdog # cat */priority 200 150 # Thanks, Takenori Nagano <t-nagano at ah.jp.nec.com>
