From: Vit Kabele <vit.kabele@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:56 AM > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 05:03:16PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Vit Kabele <vit.kabele@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Nevertheless, I am not sure about following: > > > > > > 1/ The vmbus_initiate_unload function is called within the panic handler > > > even when the vmbus initialization does not finish (there might be no > > > vmbus at all). This should probably not be problem because the vmbus > > > unload function always checks for current connection state and does > > > nothing when this is "DISCONNECTED". For better readability, it might be > > > better to add separate panic notifier for vmbus and crash reporting. > > > > > > 2/ Wouldn't it be better to extract the whole reporting capability out > > > of the vmbus module, so that it stays present in the kernel even when > > > the vmbus module is possibly unloaded? > > > > IMHO yes but as you mention hyperv_panic_event() currently does to > > things: > > 1) Initiates VMBus unload > > 2) Reports panic to the hypervisor > > > > I think untangling them moving the later to arch/x86/hyper-v (and > > arch/arm64/hyperv/) makes sense. > Ok, I will send the complete patch soon. > Vit -- FYI, there's a large patch series [1] that proposed some reorganization of the panic notifiers across the Linux kernel. Patch 16 of the series splits the Hyper-V panic notifier into two along the lines that you suggest. In addition to the patch itself, the comments and follow-on discussion are relevant to changes you propose. See my responses throughout the series. The author of the series is planning a v2, but he's out for a few weeks so there will be a delay. [2] Michael [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hyperv/20220427224924.592546-1-gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hyperv/20220427224924.592546-1-gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m3c190913bcb6f66e3ace792b4e6f2236839d4fa7
