Vivek Goyal wrote:
I think if we decide to implement something which allows other policies
to co-exist with crash_kexec() then it should be more generic then a
single function pointer.
Thanks
Vivek
A single function pointer function is suggested because it is the
simpliest compromise
I can thing of which should be able to satisfy all.
The simpliest policy I can think of is
-flip a bit on _dedicated_ hardware (crash notifier)
-launch capture kernel (existing kexec)
Nothing prevents you from implementing multiple policies to be
executed/selected among from
whatever is called by the single pointer function.
My key point is:
The complexity in my suggestion is a low as it can get, thus reliability of
kexec (hopefully) is unaffected
If crash notifiers is implemented by a complex "management system", I
might loose
reliability of kexec because of something I basically do not need.
Or to put it in other words, I you need to implement anything complex
for managing your policies,
you should add it yourself and you yourself is the only one being
affected by increased complexibility.
./Preben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
