On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 12:08:26PM +0200, Preben Traerup wrote:
> Akiyama, Nobuyuki wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't think all people will use kdump(but I recommend my customer
> >to use kdump ;-).
> >The aim of panic notifier and crash notifier is a little different,
> >so I thought these notifier lists should be separated.
> >The panic notifier was not expected of kdump after notifier return!
> >I think the better way is to modify panic notifiers to fit with
> >kdump and to move into crash notifier gradually if necessary.
> >
> >
> >
> Since I'm one of the people who very much would like best of both worlds,
> I do belive Vivek Goyal's concern about the reliability of kdump must be
> adressed properly.
>
> I do belive the crash notifier should at least be a list of its own.
> Attaching element to the list proves your are kdump aware - in theory
>
> However:
>
> Conceptually I do not like the princip of implementing crash notifier
> as a list simply because for all (our) practical usage there will only
> be one element attached to the list anyway.
>
> And as I belive crash notifiers only will be used by a very limited
> number of users, I suggested in another mail that a simple
>
> if (function pointer)
> call functon
>
> approach to be used for this special case to keep things very simple.
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
-
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]
