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 notifier, and have > the user specify the priority of the notifiers, introduce some layer > which _knows_ that, for example, only one of these subsystems will be > called (it could arbitrate, perhaps distinguish between destructive and > non-destructive ones). It would need only a single notifier, but would > then have a specific way of calling into the ras modules. > > Does this make sense? I guess it is a lot more work to do, so maybe your > solution is the best one for now.
Hi Nick, Thank you for your explanation. I understand. :-) This is crash_stop (the common infrastructure for debug tools) by Keith Owens. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01929.html Is it same as your idea? I think it is very nice solution for debug tools conflict problem. By the way, on old notify_chain, if admin wants to change the list order, admin have to recompile the kernel. My patches add new *generic* notify_chain which admin can modify the list order. My patches are not only for RAS tools problem. I'm happy if both patches are merged into mainline. :-) Thanks, Takenori - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
