> What I'm planning to do in the altera_edac notifier is:
>
> if (kdump_is_set)
> return;
Yes. That's what I think should happen.
-Tony
On 17/05/2022 14:02, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Tony / Dinh - can I just *skip* this notifier *if kdump* is set or else
>> we run the code as-is? Does that make sense to you?
>
> The "skip" option sounds like it needs some special flag associated with
> an entry on the notifier chain. But there are othe
> Tony / Dinh - can I just *skip* this notifier *if kdump* is set or else
> we run the code as-is? Does that make sense to you?
The "skip" option sounds like it needs some special flag associated with
an entry on the notifier chain. But there are other notifier chains ... so that
sounds messy to m
On 17/05/2022 11:11, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>>> Then notifiers could make an informed choice on whether to deep dive to
>>> get all the possible details (when there is no kdump) or just skim the high
>>> level stuff (to maximize chance of getting a successful kdump).
>>>
>>> -Tony
>>
>> Good id
On Mon 2022-05-16 13:33:51, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 16/05/2022 13:18, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> [...]
> > Would it be possible to have some global "kdump is configured + enabled"
> > flag?
> >
> > Then notifiers could make an informed choice on whether to deep dive to
> > get all the possib
On 16/05/2022 13:18, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> [...]
> Would it be possible to have some global "kdump is configured + enabled" flag?
>
> Then notifiers could make an informed choice on whether to deep dive to
> get all the possible details (when there is no kdump) or just skim the high
> level stuff (
> So, my reasoning here is: this notifier should fit the info list,
> definitely! But...it's very high risk for kdump. It deep dives into the
> regmap API (there are locks in such code) plus there is an (MM)IO write
> to the device and an ARM firmware call. So, despite the nature of this
> notifier
Thanks again for the review! Comments inline below:
On 16/05/2022 11:33, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>> --- a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>> @@ -2163,7 +2162,7 @@ static int altr_edac_a10_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> int dberror, err_ad
On Wed 2022-04-27 19:49:15, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
> the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
> in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
> early, some of them not so early [b
On 29/04/2022 13:04, Max Filippov wrote:
> [...]
>> arch/xtensa/platforms/iss/setup.c | 4 ++--For xtensa:
>
> For xtensa:
> Acked-by: Max Filippov
>
Perfect, thanks Max!
Cheers,
Guilherme
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:55 PM Guilherme G. Piccoli
wrote:
>
> This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
> the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
> in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
> early, some of them not so e
On 28/04/2022 13:26, Corey Minyard wrote:
> [...]
>
> For the IPMI portion:
>
> Acked-by: Corey Minyard
Thanks Alex and Corey for the ACKs!
>
> Note that the IPMI panic_event() should always return, but it may take
> some time, especially if the IPMI controller is no longer functional.
> So t
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:49:15PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
> the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
> in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
> early, some of them n
On 4/27/22 5:49 PM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
This patch renames the panic_notifier_list to panic_pre_reboot_list;
the idea is that a subsequent patch will refactor the panic path
in order to better split the notifiers, running some of them very
early, some of them not so early [but still befor
14 matches
Mail list logo
