Nick Piggin wrote:
>>> Is it possible to use a single bit of common code and a single
>>> notifier for these things? Or is it too difficult?
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, I can't understand your image well. I'd like to know details of
>> > your image.
>
> Rather than have each of "RAS tools" have their own
On Thursday 25 October 2007 15:45, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:31:06PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 October 2007 21:12, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On 10/24/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It was intended to be something like /proc/sys/kernel/ only.
>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:31:06PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 October 2007 21:12, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On 10/24/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:55, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> > > > Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > > One thing I'd suggest is
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 21:12, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:55, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> > > Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > One thing I'd suggest is not to use debugfs, if it is going to
> > > > be a useful end-user feat
On 10/24/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:55, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> > Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > One thing I'd suggest is not to use debugfs, if it is going to
> > > be a useful end-user feature.
> >
> > Is /sys/kernel/notifier_name/ an appropriate place
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:55, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > One thing I'd suggest is not to use debugfs, if it is going to
> > be a useful end-user feature.
>
> Is /sys/kernel/notifier_name/ an appropriate place?
Hi list,
I'm curious about the /sys/kernel/ namespace. I had
On Thursday 18 October 2007 18:52, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > My stance is that _all_ the RAS tools (kdb, kgdb, nlkd, netdump, lkcd,
> > > crash, kdump etc.) should be using a common interface that safely puts
> > > the entire system in a stopped state and saves the state of
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:06:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:08 +0900 Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can sort-of see what this is doing. Runtime-definable management of
>> which notifier functions will be called on a panic? Or m
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:06:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:08 +0900 Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > A big thanks to everybody who read and replied to first version. I have
> > tried to
> > incorporate reviewer's comments and suggestion
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:08 +0900 Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A big thanks to everybody who read and replied to first version. I have tried
> to
> incorporate reviewer's comments and suggestions.
>
> changelog take1 -> take2
>
> - Rebased 2.6.23
> - comment updated
>
Hi,
A big thanks to everybody who read and replied to first version. I have tried to
incorporate reviewer's comments and suggestions.
changelog take1 -> take2
- Rebased 2.6.23
- comment updated
- renamed the notifiner name "tunable_notifier" to "tunable_atomic_notifier"
- fixed typo
These patc
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> These patches add new notifier function and implement it to
>> panic_notifier_list.
>> We used the hardcoded notifier chain so far, but it was not flexible. New
>> notifier is very flexible, because user can cha
Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> These patches add new notifier function and implement it to
> panic_notifier_list.
> We used the hardcoded notifier chain so far, but it was not flexible. New
> notifier is very flexible, because user can change a list of order by debugfs.
Ho
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:38:05PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>
> In summary, right now co-existence of kdb with kdump seems to be your pain
> point. I would prefer that kdb just puts a break point on panic() and we move
> on. If there are more candidates down the line and t
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:38:05PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Hi,
>
> These patches add new notifier function and implement it to
> panic_notifier_list.
> We used the hardcoded notifier chain so far, but it was not flexible. New
> notifier is very flexible, because user can change a list of
Hi,
These patches add new notifier function and implement it to panic_notifier_list.
We used the hardcoded notifier chain so far, but it was not flexible. New
notifier is very flexible, because user can change a list of order by debugfs.
Please review, and give some comments.
Thanks,
Example)
16 matches
Mail list logo
