lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] efi_pstore: Introducing workqueue updating sysfs entries
Date
> 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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-18 00:21    [W:0.053 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site