On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:36:13 +0200
Preben Traerup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> >Preben Traerup <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Since I'm apperantly not the only one left with this choice I rather prefer a
> >>solution
> >>made in public, that is known to be "bad" in some (well known) situations than
> >>each and everybody implements their own solution to the same problem.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It is certainly worth discussing.
> >
> >Eric
> >
> >
> >
> To handle the contradiction of adding crash notifier to kexec and
> maintaining kexec reliability
> I suggest adding a flag to Kconfig
> ENABLE_CRASH_NOTIFIER
>
> This removes any code in the critical path for people not needing crash
> notification.
I am just thinking same thing, but one point is different.
To select policy by Kconfig is not flexible. If we want to change policy,
we have to rebuild the kernel. I don't think that distributors release
the kernels for each policy.
Instead of Kconfig, how about using proc filesystem. e.g. kdump_safe.
If kdump_safe is 1, crash notifier will not be called.
If kdump_safe is 0, crash notifier will be called.
Regards,
Akiyama, Nobuyuki
-
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]
