> What I'm planning to do in the altera_edac notifier is:
>
> if (kdump_is_set)
> return;
Yes. That's what I think should happen.
-Tony
On 17/05/2022 14:02, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Tony / Dinh - can I just *skip* this notifier *if kdump* is set or else
>> we run the code as-is? Does that make sense to you?
>
> The "skip" option sounds like it needs some special flag associated with
> an entry on the notifier chain. But there are
> Tony / Dinh - can I just *skip* this notifier *if kdump* is set or else
> we run the code as-is? Does that make sense to you?
The "skip" option sounds like it needs some special flag associated with
an entry on the notifier chain. But there are other notifier chains ... so that
sounds messy to
On 17/05/2022 11:11, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>>> Then notifiers could make an informed choice on whether to deep dive to
>>> get all the possible details (when there is no kdump) or just skim the high
>>> level stuff (to maximize chance of getting a successful kdump).
>>>
>>> -Tony
>>
>> Good
On 16/05/2022 13:18, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> [...]
> Would it be possible to have some global "kdump is configured + enabled" flag?
>
> Then notifiers could make an informed choice on whether to deep dive to
> get all the possible details (when there is no kdump) or just skim the high
> level stuff
> So, my reasoning here is: this notifier should fit the info list,
> definitely! But...it's very high risk for kdump. It deep dives into the
> regmap API (there are locks in such code) plus there is an (MM)IO write
> to the device and an ARM firmware call. So, despite the nature of this
>
Thanks again for the review! Comments inline below:
On 16/05/2022 11:33, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>> --- a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>> @@ -2163,7 +2162,7 @@ static int altr_edac_a10_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> int dberror,
On 29/04/2022 13:04, Max Filippov wrote:
> [...]
>> arch/xtensa/platforms/iss/setup.c | 4 ++--For xtensa:
>
> For xtensa:
> Acked-by: Max Filippov
>
Perfect, thanks Max!
Cheers,
Guilherme
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:55 PM Guilherme G. Piccoli
wrote:
>
> This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
> the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
> in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
> early, some of them not so
On 28/04/2022 13:26, Corey Minyard wrote:
> [...]
>
> For the IPMI portion:
>
> Acked-by: Corey Minyard
Thanks Alex and Corey for the ACKs!
>
> Note that the IPMI panic_event() should always return, but it may take
> some time, especially if the IPMI controller is no longer functional.
> So
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:49:15PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
> the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
> in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
> early, some of them
On 4/27/22 5:49 PM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
early, some of them not so early [but still
This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
early, some of them not so early [but still before kmsg_dump()] and
finally, the rest should
13 matches
Mail list logo
