On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 12:08:26PM +0200, Preben Traerup wrote: > Akiyama, Nobuyuki wrote: > > > > >I don't think all people will use kdump(but I recommend my customer > >to use kdump ;-). > >The aim of panic notifier and crash notifier is a little different, > >so I thought these notifier lists should be separated. > >The panic notifier was not expected of kdump after notifier return! > >I think the better way is to modify panic notifiers to fit with > >kdump and to move into crash notifier gradually if necessary. > > > > > > > Since I'm one of the people who very much would like best of both worlds, > I do belive Vivek Goyal's concern about the reliability of kdump must be > adressed properly. > > I do belive the crash notifier should at least be a list of its own. > Attaching element to the list proves your are kdump aware - in theory > > However: > > Conceptually I do not like the princip of implementing crash notifier > as a list simply because for all (our) practical usage there will only > be one element attached to the list anyway. > > And as I belive crash notifiers only will be used by a very limited > number of users, I suggested in another mail that a simple > > if (function pointer) > call functon > > approach to be used for this special case to keep things very simple.
I think if we decide to implement something which allows other policies to co-exist with crash_kexec() then it should be more generic then a single function pointer. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
