From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751310AbWFBO4g (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:56:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750774AbWFBO4g (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:56:36 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:9628 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751310AbWFBO4f (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:56:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:56:26 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Preben Traerup Cc: "Akiyama, Nobuyuki" , fastboot@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Fastboot] [RFC][PATCH] Add missing notifier before crashing Message-ID: <20060602145626.GB29610@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com References: <20060530183359.a8d5d736.akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060530145658.GC6536@in.ibm.com> <20060531182045.9db2fac9.akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060531154322.GA8475@in.ibm.com> <20060601213730.dc9f1ec4.akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060601151605.GA7380@in.ibm.com> <20060602141301.cdecf0e1.akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com> <44800E1A.1080306@ericsson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44800E1A.1080306@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 12:08:26PM +0200, Preben Traerup wrote: > Akiyama, Nobuyuki wrote: > > > > >I don't think all people will use kdump(but I recommend my customer > >to use kdump ;-). > >The aim of panic notifier and crash notifier is a little different, > >so I thought these notifier lists should be separated. > >The panic notifier was not expected of kdump after notifier return! > >I think the better way is to modify panic notifiers to fit with > >kdump and to move into crash notifier gradually if necessary. > > > > > > > Since I'm one of the people who very much would like best of both worlds, > I do belive Vivek Goyal's concern about the reliability of kdump must be > adressed properly. > > I do belive the crash notifier should at least be a list of its own. > Attaching element to the list proves your are kdump aware - in theory > > However: > > Conceptually I do not like the princip of implementing crash notifier > as a list simply because for all (our) practical usage there will only > be one element attached to the list anyway. > > And as I belive crash notifiers only will be used by a very limited > number of users, I suggested in another mail that a simple > > if (function pointer) > call functon > > approach to be used for this special case to keep things very simple. I think if we decide to implement something which allows other policies to co-exist with crash_kexec() then it should be more generic then a single function pointer. Thanks Vivek