Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752051AbbEFM2F (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2015 08:28:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:34885 "EHLO mail-ob0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751197AbbEFM2D (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2015 08:28:03 -0400 Message-ID: <554A08CF.4000509@acm.org> Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 07:27:59 -0500 From: Corey Minyard Reply-To: minyard@acm.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hidehiro Kawai CC: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: Fix a problem that messages are not issued in run_to_completion mode References: <5538560C.1040502@hitachi.com> <553A3E7D.6040207@acm.org> <553F8004.8020408@hitachi.com> In-Reply-To: <553F8004.8020408@hitachi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1487 Lines: 36 On 04/28/2015 07:41 AM, Hidehiro Kawai wrote: > Hello, > > (2015/04/24 22:00), Corey Minyard wrote: >> Ah, yes, you are correct. Queued for 4.1. Thanks. > Thank you for the review. > > By the way, I'm planning some enhancements of IPMI driver > in panic context. Currently, we can call panic notifiers > before crash_kexec() by specifying crash_kexec_post_notifiers > as a boot parameter. By utilizing this feature, we can write > SEL records before entering kdump process; we can save some > information even if kdump fails. Here, notifier calls > shouldn't prevent the kdump process. So, the reliability of > panic notifier calls is very important. I thought these were called before crash_kexec(). But if not that would be a good enhancement. > I noticed that there are possible infinite loops in the > panic notifier call of IPMI driver (we assume BMC is > unreliable). To evict possible infinite loops, I'm considering > introducing some retry timeout or retry count limit to the > run_to_completion procedure. > > Do you have any opinions? That's probably a good idea. My thought was to keep trying in hopes of getting something out, but you are probably right, a timeout after a few minutes is probably appropriate. -corey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/