From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from tyo200.gate.nec.co.jp ([210.143.35.50]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1IdOyZ-0001N5-1I for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:34:45 +0100 Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.202]) by tyo200.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l94BWaaB012920 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:32:36 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4704CEC5.3020306@ah.jp.nec.com> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:30:13 +0900 From: Takenori Nagano MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch] add kdump_after_notifier References: <20070802112852.GA7054@in.ibm.com> <31687.1186113947@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> <20070805110746.GA12540@in.ibm.com> <46C1691E.7090708@ah.jp.nec.com> <20070814083710.GA14538@suse.de> <20070814132454.GA8293@in.ibm.com> <46C4184B.5030303@ah.jp.nec.com> <20070817105630.GA18167@in.ibm.com> <46CAE627.7070908@sgi.com> <20070823035629.GB365@in.ibm.com> <46CDC51D.5070206@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <46CDC51D.5070206@sgi.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org To: Jay Lan Cc: k-miyoshi@cb.jp.nec.com, Bernhard Walle , kexec@lists.infradead.org, vgoyal@in.ibm.com, "Eric W. Biederman" , Keith Owens , Andrew Morton Hi all, I finished to implement this function. I will send patches after this mail. Please review them and give some comments. Thanks, Jay Lan wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kdump/priority >>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kdb/priority >>>> /sys/kernel/debug/IPMI/priority >>> 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 > very important. > > Thanks, > - jay > >> Thanks >> Vivek >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kexec mailing list >> kexec@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec