Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <788ab36d-ef65-4cc8-4edf-a46d2687d97e@igalia.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:25:30 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] notifier/panic: Introduce panic_notifier_filter
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "bhe@redhat.com" <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        "d.hatayama@fujitsu.com" <d.hatayama@fujitsu.com>,
        "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dyoung@redhat.com" <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "vgoyal@redhat.com" <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        "stern@rowland.harvard.edu" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com" 
        <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "halves@canonical.com" <halves@canonical.com>,
        "kernel@gpiccoli.net" <kernel@gpiccoli.net>
References: <20220108153451.195121-1-gpiccoli@igalia.com>
 <TYAPR01MB6507D06BA6D32218F6E88198955F9@TYAPR01MB6507.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <fda509a5-ea0d-4d1d-a1c1-ca5e80010fc0@igalia.com>
 <TYAPR01MB6507D9747647685B554B8F8F955F9@TYAPR01MB6507.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <fb5e66b6-049a-22ab-5913-a04cc302b629@igalia.com> <YfPxvzSzDLjO5ldp@alley>
 <73011b6f-084b-43f5-cc01-1818a8a57e56@igalia.com>
 <YiV/HbXftVF2iAvU@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <e1033adc-46ff-5dbc-e739-1bf725b6fed0@igalia.com>
 <YiYQ/w6Hn5Zb67di@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
From:   "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
In-Reply-To: <YiYQ/w6Hn5Zb67di@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07/03/2022 11:04, bhe@redhat.com wrote:
> [...]
> Ah, sorry, I even didn't notice that. That's awesome if we can make use
> of that. While I still have concerns:
> 

Thanks, nice that you liked the idea.

> 1) about those we have decided to take out from panic notifier list and
> put before kdump, e.g the Hypver-V notifier, how will we do with it? Are
> we going to handle them as we have discussed?
> 

While implementing that I will think of something, but if
understood/remember correctly Hyper-V gonna be one of the first to run
in the first notifier list proposed by Petr - so we might still use
ordering by priority there, having Hyper-V being the first heh

> 2) Combing and settling priority for all existing panic notifier looks
> great, even though it will take some effort. How about the later newly
> added one? How can we guarantee that those new notifiers are getting
> appropriate priority to mark their order? Sometime we even don't know
> a new panic notifier is added since code change may be made in any
> component or driver.
> 

This is a great point! How to do it? One idea is to have a special
registering function for panic notifiers that checks for priority field
missing, and good documentation is a good idea as well, always.

But if you / others have other suggestions, let me know - appreciate that.
Cheers,


Guilherme