On 10/05/2022 10:53, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
>> On 05/05/2022 15:55, Hari Bathini wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The change looks good. I have tested it on an LPAR (ppc64).
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Hari Bathini
>>>
>>
>> Hi Michael. do you think it's possible to add this one t
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
> On 05/05/2022 15:55, Hari Bathini wrote:
>> [...]
>> The change looks good. I have tested it on an LPAR (ppc64).
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Hari Bathini
>>
>
> Hi Michael. do you think it's possible to add this one to powerpc/next
> (or something like that), or do you
On 05/05/2022 15:55, Hari Bathini wrote:
> [...]
> The change looks good. I have tested it on an LPAR (ppc64).
>
> Reviewed-by: Hari Bathini
>
Hi Michael. do you think it's possible to add this one to powerpc/next
(or something like that), or do you prefer a V2 with his tag?
Thanks,
Guilherm
On 05/05/2022 15:55, Hari Bathini wrote:
> [...]
>
> The change looks good. I have tested it on an LPAR (ppc64).
>
> Reviewed-by: Hari Bathini
Thanks a bunch Hari, much appreciated!
On 28/04/22 4:19 am, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
The panic notifiers infrastructure is a bit limited in the scope of
the callbacks - basically every kind of functionality is dropped
in a list that runs in the same point during the kernel panic path.
This is not really on par with the complexit
The panic notifiers infrastructure is a bit limited in the scope of
the callbacks - basically every kind of functionality is dropped
in a list that runs in the same point during the kernel panic path.
This is not really on par with the complexities and particularities
of architecture / hypervisors'
