[patch] add kdump_after_notifier
jlan at sgi.com
Thu Aug 23 13:34:21 EDT 2007
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
>>>>> Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and
>>>>> be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their
>>>>> priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist.
>>>> This is my image of your proposal.
>>>> - Print current order
>>>> # cat /sys/class/misc/debug/panic_notifier_list
>>>> priority name
>>>> 1 IPMI
>>>> 2 watchdog
>>>> 3 Kdb
>>>> 4 Kdump
>>> I think Bernhard's suggestion looks better here. I noticed that
>>> /sys/kernel/debug is already present. So how about following.
>> Why separate priority files is better than a central file?
>> At least i think you get a grand picture of priority being
>> defined for all parties with a central file?
> I thought of couple of reasons.
> - A very different syntax to modify the priority.
> - Separate directories allow easy future extensions in terms of more
> files. For example, putting a small "description" file in each dir
> where each registered user can specify what does it do.
The first can be easily resolved by providing a comment section in the
file with real examples. Users can simply uncomment a line to activate.
But future expansion is certainly is a good reason for this layout.
> But I agree that a single file is good for consolidated view. As bernhard
> suggested, may be we should also implement a read only file where one
> will get a consolidated view.
Yep, this will help!
>> What do we decide priority if more than one component has
>> the same priority value?
> I think first come first serve would be appropriate in this case instead of
> returning -EINVAL.
How does the kernel process the configuration files? By alphabetic order
of the filename? Either way, i think a clear failure/warning dmesg is
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
More information about the kexec