[patch] add kdump_after_notifier
akpm at linux-foundation.org
Fri Aug 3 03:37:43 EDT 2007
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:34:04 +1000 Keith Owens <kaos at ocs.com.au> wrote:
> Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote:
> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <kaos at sgi.com> wrote:
> Switching to kaos at ocs.com.au, I just resigned from SGI.
> >> I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody
> >> has different ideas, there is no overall plan and little interest from
> >> Linus in getting RAS tools into the kernel. We are just thrashing.
> >Lots of different groups, little commonality in their desired funtionality,
> >little interest in sharing infrastructure or concepts. Sometimes people
> >need a bit of motivational help.
> >In this case that motivation would come from the understanding that all the
> >RAS tools would be *required* to use such infrastructure if it was merged.
> >Going off and open-coding your own stuff would henceforth not be acceptable.
> >If it turns out that it really was unsuitable for a particular group's RAS
> >feature, and we merged it anyway, well, that mismatch is that group's
> >It was a sizeable mistake to send those patches to a few obscure mailing
> >lists - this is the first I've heard of it, for example.
> linux-arch is obscure??
Exceedingly. It's a way of contacting arch maintainers, that's all. It
isn't really a place to discuss new infrastructural concepts which affect
> Where else do you send patches that affect
> multiple architectures?
This should have gone to linux-kernel.
> >So. Please, send it all again, copy the correct lists and people, make sure
> >that at least one client of the infrastructure is wired up and working (ideally,
> >all such in-kernel clients should be wired up) and let's take a look at it.
> Already tried that. The only RAS tool that is currently in the kernel is
> kexec/kdump and they insist on doing things their own way. That makes
> it impossible to put a common RAS structure in place, because kexec
> will not use it.
eh, write the patch for them, let's look at how much impact it is likely to
> Sorry to keep beating on this drum, but kexec insist that their code
> must have priority and that they do not trust the rest of the kernel.
> Until that changes, there is no point is discussing how to make kexec
> coexist with other RAS tools. If kexec change their mind then we can
> look at using a common RAS interface, otherwise it is a waste of time
> and I have better things to do with my life.
I saw one email from Vivek expressing on-general-principle concerns. It
was hardly thorough or irreconcilable-looking.
Let's drag this thing into the daylight and poke at it a bit.
More information about the kexec