[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A5ED84D3BB3A384992CBB9C77DEDA4D413800199@USINDEM103.corp.hds.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:41:58 +0000
From: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
To: Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony (tony.luck@...el.com)" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Matthew Garrett (mjg@...hat.com)" <mjg@...hat.com>,
"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] efi_pstore: Introducing workqueue updating
sysfs entries
> You could, but why not always just schedule_work()? If we are hosed by broken workqueue/scheduler locking, the user isn't going to
> see those files in sysfs either way :)
I'm not concern about failure of sysfs operations.
In panic function call, panic_notifier_chain is kicked. Also users may expect the system reboots in panic case
by specifying /proc/sys/kernel/panic.
I just would like to avoid failures of those operations without adding unnecessary calls in the write callback.
> If you are going to insist that we shouldn't schedule_work() in the other cases, I'd prefer:
>
> /* The user may want to see an entry for this write in sysfs. */ if (reason == KMSG_DUMP_OOPS)
> schedule_work(...);
>
Thank you for your suggestion. I will update my patch by adding this logic above.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists