Vivek Goyal wrote: >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 > > > A single function pointer function is suggested because it is the simpliest compromise I can thing of which should be able to satisfy all.
The simpliest policy I can think of is -flip a bit on _dedicated_ hardware (crash notifier) -launch capture kernel (existing kexec) Nothing prevents you from implementing multiple policies to be executed/selected among from whatever is called by the single pointer function. My key point is: The complexity in my suggestion is a low as it can get, thus reliability of kexec (hopefully) is unaffected If crash notifiers is implemented by a complex "management system", I might loose reliability of kexec because of something I basically do not need. Or to put it in other words, I you need to implement anything complex for managing your policies, you should add it yourself and you yourself is the only one being affected by increased complexibility. ./Preben _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
