Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
> [..]
> Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and
> be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their
> priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist.
>>>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
[..]
> >>> Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and
> >>> be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their
> >>> priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist.
> >> This is my image of y
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:45:02PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> >> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> >>> and if it runs into issues we can
* Jay Lan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-21 15:18]:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> >> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> >>> and if it runs into issues we can always think of
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
>>> and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
>>>
>>> Few things come to mind.
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
>>> and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
>>>
>>> Few things come to mind.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> > and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
> >
> > Few things come to mind.
> >
> > - Why there i
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-16 11:26]:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > - Modify Kdump to register on die_chain list.
> > - Modify Kdb to register on die_chain list.
> > - Export all the registered members of die_chain through sysfs along with
> > their priorities. Priorities should b
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
>
> Few things come to mind.
>
> - Why there is a separate panic_notifier_list? Can't it be merged with
> die_chain? die_va
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
> > Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
> > >
> > > - Registe
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:48]:
> Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
> >> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
> >
Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
>>>
>>> - Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
>>> notifi
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> >
> >
> > To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
> >
> > - Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
> > notifier lists with fairly h
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>
> To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
>
> - Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
> notifier lists with fairly high priority. Export list
> of RAS tools to user space and allow users t
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
[..]
> >Some thoughts on possible solutions for this problem.
> >
> >- Stop exporting panic_notifier_list list to modules. Audit the in kernel
> > users of panic_notifier_list. Let crash_kexec() run once all other users
> > of panic_no
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:34:04 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote:
> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Switching to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I just resigned from SGI.
>
> >> I have pretty wel
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Much of the onus is upon the various RAS tool developers to demonstrate why it
> is unsuitable for their use and, hopefully, to explain how it can be fixed for
> them.
My current take on the situation.
There are 4 different cases we care about.
- Triv
Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Switching to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I just resigned from SGI.
>> I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody
>> has different ideas, there is
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody
> has different ideas, there is no overall plan and little interest from
> Linus in getting RAS tools into the kernel. We are just thrashing.
Lots o
Vivek Goyal (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:58:52 +0530) wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:00:48AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
>> >> impact. We need to see who is using this and why
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:00:48AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
> >> impact. We need to see who is using this and why.
> >
> > My motivation is very simple. I want to use both k
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then I gave up to merge my patch to kdb, and I tried to send another patch to
>> kexec community. I can understand his opinion, but it is very difficult to
>> modify that kdump is called from panic_notifier. Because it has a
Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
>> impact. We need to see who is using this and why.
>
> My motivation is very simple. I want to use both kdb and kdump, but I think it
> is too weak to satisfy kexec guys. Then I brough
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> IMHO, most users don't use kdump, kdump users are only kernel developers and
>> enterprise users.
>
> Not at all. So far the only kdump related bug report I have seen has
> been from fedora Core.
Sorry, I th
Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi all,
>
> IMHO, most users don't use kdump, kdump users are only kernel developers and
> enterprise users.
Not at all. So far the only kdump related bug report I have seen has
been from fedora Core.
> think enterprise users want the notifier fun
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Bernhard's idea (kdump uses panic_notifier) is very good for me. But it
>>> isn't
>>> good for kdump user, because they want to take a dump ASAP when panicked.
>>>
>> This one is better than registering kdump as one of the u
Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Bernhard's idea (kdump uses panic_notifier) is very good for me. But it isn't
>> good for kdump user, because they want to take a dump ASAP when panicked.
>>
>
> This one is better than registering kdump as one of the users of a
> panic_notifier() list.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:28:48AM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> >> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
> Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by defau
Hi Vivek,
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
>> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
gives the user the choice.
>>> What value will distro set it
* Bernhard Walle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 18:14]:
> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:54]:
> >
> > That's true. Its not mainline. We had similar discussion in the past
> > also. I think we should allow only audited code to be run after panic().
> > Leaving it open to modules
* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:54]:
>
> That's true. Its not mainline. We had similar discussion in the past
> also. I think we should allow only audited code to be run after panic().
> Leaving it open to modules or unaudited code makes this solution
> something like LKCD where w
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
> > >
> > > Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
> > > gives the user the choice.
> > >
> >
> > What value will distro set it to by default?
>
* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
> >
> > Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
> > gives the user the choice.
> >
>
> What value will distro set it to by default?
0.
> Can we be more specific in terms of functionality and code that exactly
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:40PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:32]:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > > * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
> > > >
> > > > In latest kernel, we can't use
* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:32]:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
> > >
> > > In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
> > > panic_notifier_list is ver
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
> >
> > In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
> > panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
> >
> > So this p
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
>
> In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
> panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
>
> So this patch adds a control file /proc/sys/kernel/dump_after_notifier
> and resolves
Hi,
In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
So this patch adds a control file /proc/sys/kernel/dump_after_notifier
and resolves a problem users can not use both kdump and panic_notifier_list
at
38 matches
Mail list logo
