From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261813AbUBWFd4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:33:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261822AbUBWFd4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:33:56 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:16557 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261813AbUBWFdz (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:33:55 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:34:38 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: strosake@austin.ibm.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch-specific callout in panic() Message-Id: <20040222213438.7682ff7b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <40398BFE.1040300@austin.ibm.com> References: <40398BFE.1040300@austin.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Strosaker wrote: > > There are some ppc64-specific actions that should be taken upon a > kernel panic. Rather than adding a new #ifdef in panic(), it seems to > me that it would be worthwhile to add a single callout, and move the > arch-specific code out to the arch subtrees. Does this seem reasonable, > or should another #ifdef be added in panic() to perform the ppc64- > specific actions? We have the panic_notifier_list in there. Cannot you hook into that?