lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: reboot notifier priority definitions
On Tuesday September 11, ast@domdv.de wrote:
> >
> > I think this misses the point of reboot notifiers (as I understand
> > it).
> >
> > There are *only* meant for "physical" sorts of things.
> > The comment in the code says:
> > * Notifier list for kernel code which wants to be called
> > * at shutdown. This is used to stop any idling DMA operations
> > * and the like.
> >
> > md, lvm, knfsd and tux have no business registering a reboot notifier.
> > If they have something to shut down, it should be shut down in a
> > higher-level way, such as when a process gets a signal.
> >
> Even then: My servers do have watchdog cards. Unfortunately without the
> priority definitions the watchdog card was shut down prior to the oops. Thus,
> due to missing priority, the system did require hitting the reboot button.
> So some well defined priorization is still required.

Fair enough.

Maybe we need one priority for devices,
A lower priority for busses,
An even lower one for watchdogs,

or something like that.
I'll leave to to people who understand hardware configurations and
controllers better than me.

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.078 / U:1.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site