On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:52:32 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Preben Traerup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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 am completely against crash notifiers. The code crash_kexec switches to > is what is notified and it can do whatever it likes. The premise is > that the kernel does not work. Therefore we cannot safely notify > kernel code. We do the very minimal to get out of the kernel, > and it is my opinion we still do to much. > > The crash_kexec entry point is not about taking crash dumps. It is > about implementing policy when the kernel panics. Generally the > policy we want is a crash dump but the mechanism is general purpose > and not limited to that. I understand it is more reliable that the notifier is executed by crash_kexec(). But I guess it take longer time than a clustering system demand and it is more complex to implement the notifier. The crash notifier I proposed is very simple and lightweight, and it is easy to use for all people. Regards, Akiyama, Nobuyuki _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
