Vivek Goyal <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:49:32AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Sounds like trouble for modules. I am assuming that code to power down the
> scsi disks/controller will be part of the driver, which is generally built
> as a module and also assuming that powering down the disks is a valid
> requirement after the crash.
I'm assuming if anything is important and critical enough to be in a crash
notifier it can be built into the kernel.
> After introducing an option to disable/enable crash notifiers from user
> space I think now responsibility lies to with user. If he chooses to enable
> the notifiers, he understands that there are chances that we never boot
> into the next kernel and get lost in between.
At the moment this is a lot of infrastructure for a vaguely defined
case that I have yet to see defined.
One of the reasons using kexec for this kind of activity was precisely
because it doesn't do any of this when the kernel is known to be
broken.
Having notifiers and being able to disable them is designing for an
unspecified case. We need to concentrate on the fundamentals here.
Do any of these crash notifiers make sense?
If after the notifiers are well understood they it makes sense to
add a general framework etc, then I'm for it.
Eric
-
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]
