From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751704AbaGKApS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:45:18 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:32889 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751223AbaGKApO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:45:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:44:25 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Jonas Jensen <jonas.jensen@gmail.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] kernel: Add support for restart notifier call
 chain
Message-Id: <20140710174425.2f3fea98.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
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>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:15:49 -0700 Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> 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 ;)