On 16/05/2022 11:45, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>
> The patch looks good to me. I would just suggest two changes.
>
> 1. I would rename the list to "panic_loop_list" instead of
>"panic_post_reboot_list".
>
>It will be more clear that it includes things that are
>needed before panic()
On Wed 2022-04-27 19:49:16, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> Currently we have 3 notifier lists in the panic path, which will
> be wired in a way to allow the notifier callbacks to run in
> different moments at panic time, in a subsequent patch.
>
> But there is also an odd set of architecture calls
On 11/05/2022 13:45, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Hey S390/SPARC folks, sorry for the ping!
>>
>> Any reviews on this V1 would be greatly appreciated, I'm working on V2
>> and seeking feedback in the non-reviewed patches.
>
> Sorry, missed that this is quite s390 specific. So, yes, this loo
On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 11:16:10AM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 19:49, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> > Currently we have 3 notifier lists in the panic path, which will
> > be wired in a way to allow the notifier callbacks to run in
> > different moments at panic time, in a sub
On 27/04/2022 19:49, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> Currently we have 3 notifier lists in the panic path, which will
> be wired in a way to allow the notifier callbacks to run in
> different moments at panic time, in a subsequent patch.
>
> But there is also an odd set of architecture calls hardcod
Currently we have 3 notifier lists in the panic path, which will
be wired in a way to allow the notifier callbacks to run in
different moments at panic time, in a subsequent patch.
But there is also an odd set of architecture calls hardcoded in
the end of panic path, after the restart machinery. T
