From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: akpm@linux-foundation.org (Andrew Morton) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:44:25 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/7] kernel: Add support for restart notifier call chain In-Reply-To: <53BF2CB5.5080602@roeck-us.net> References: <1404877083-6552-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20140710160907.da1024914366de947ebdf384@linux-foundation.org> <53BF2CB5.5080602@roeck-us.net> Message-ID: <20140710174425.2f3fea98.akpm@linux-foundation.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:15:49 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote: > Error on my part - I thought lower numbers would > have higher priority, but after looking into the code again that > is wrong. You shouldn't have needed to look into the code :( Maybe a documentation patch for notifier_block.priority for the next person? > To avoid making things too complicated, maybe it would make sense to > specify guidelines for notifier priorities, such as > 0 - restart notifier of last resort, with least reset capabilities > 128 - default; use if no other notifier is expected to be available > and/or if restart functionality is acceptable > 255 - highest priority notifier which _must_ be used > > Would that make sense and be acceptable ? In this context, I would then > set the notifier priorities for the callers in the patch set to 128. Yep, that sounds nice. It's unlikely to see a lot of use, but at least we showed we thought about it ;)