Re: reboot notifier priority definitions

Neil Brown (
Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:34:20 +1000 (EST)

On Tuesday September 11, 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at