Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764859AbXHWReq (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:34:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755481AbXHWRej (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:34:39 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:59475 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752128AbXHWRei (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:34:38 -0400 Message-ID: <46CDC51D.5070206@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:34:21 -0700 From: Jay Lan User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060725) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com CC: k-miyoshi@cb.jp.nec.com, Bernhard Walle , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Takenori Nagano , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Keith Owens , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] add kdump_after_notifier References: <20070802112852.GA7054@in.ibm.com> <31687.1186113947@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> <20070805110746.GA12540@in.ibm.com> <46C1691E.7090708@ah.jp.nec.com> <20070814083710.GA14538@suse.de> <20070814132454.GA8293@in.ibm.com> <46C4184B.5030303@ah.jp.nec.com> <20070817105630.GA18167@in.ibm.com> <46CAE627.7070908@sgi.com> <20070823035629.GB365@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070823035629.GB365@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2465 Lines: 74 Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote: > [..] >>>>> Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and >>>>> be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their >>>>> priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist. >>>> This is my image of your proposal. >>>> >>>> - Print current order >>>> >>>> # cat /sys/class/misc/debug/panic_notifier_list >>>> priority name >>>> 1 IPMI >>>> 2 watchdog >>>> 3 Kdb >>>> 4 Kdump >>>> >>> I think Bernhard's suggestion looks better here. I noticed that >>> /sys/kernel/debug is already present. So how about following. >>> >>> /sys/kernel/debug/kdump/priority >>> /sys/kernel/debug/kdb/priority >>> /sys/kernel/debug/IPMI/priority >> Why separate priority files is better than a central file? >> At least i think you get a grand picture of priority being >> defined for all parties with a central file? >> > > I thought of couple of reasons. > - A very different syntax to modify the priority. > - Separate directories allow easy future extensions in terms of more > files. For example, putting a small "description" file in each dir > where each registered user can specify what does it do. The first can be easily resolved by providing a comment section in the file with real examples. Users can simply uncomment a line to activate. But future expansion is certainly is a good reason for this layout. > > But I agree that a single file is good for consolidated view. As bernhard > suggested, may be we should also implement a read only file where one > will get a consolidated view. Yep, this will help! > >> What do we decide priority if more than one component has >> the same priority value? >> > > I think first come first serve would be appropriate in this case instead of > returning -EINVAL. How does the kernel process the configuration files? By alphabetic order of the filename? Either way, i think a clear failure/warning dmesg is very important. Thanks, - jay > > Thanks > Vivek > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > kexec@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec - 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/