On 07/03/2022 11:04, bhe@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [...] > Ah, sorry, I even didn't notice that. That's awesome if we can make use > of that. While I still have concerns: > Thanks, nice that you liked the idea. > 1) about those we have decided to take out from panic notifier list and > put before kdump, e.g the Hypver-V notifier, how will we do with it? Are > we going to handle them as we have discussed? > While implementing that I will think of something, but if understood/remember correctly Hyper-V gonna be one of the first to run in the first notifier list proposed by Petr - so we might still use ordering by priority there, having Hyper-V being the first heh > 2) Combing and settling priority for all existing panic notifier looks > great, even though it will take some effort. How about the later newly > added one? How can we guarantee that those new notifiers are getting > appropriate priority to mark their order? Sometime we even don't know > a new panic notifier is added since code change may be made in any > component or driver. > This is a great point! How to do it? One idea is to have a special registering function for panic notifiers that checks for priority field missing, and good documentation is a good idea as well, always. But if you / others have other suggestions, let me know - appreciate that. Cheers, Guilherme _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
