Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] kernel/notifier: replace single-linked list with double-linked list for reverse traversal

Hi,

On 4/21/26 17:05, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2026-04-20 14:44:29, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Song,
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:01:37 +0800
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> From: Song Chen <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> The current notifier chain implementation uses a single-linked list
>>> (struct notifier_block *next), which only supports forward traversal
>>> in priority order. This makes it difficult to handle cleanup/teardown
>>> scenarios that require notifiers to be called in reverse priority order.
>>
>> What about introducing a new notification callback API that allows you
>> to describe dependencies between callback functions?
>>
>> For example, when registering a callback, you could register a string
>> as an ID and specify whether to call it before or after that ID,
>> or you could register a comparison function that is called when adding
>> to a list. (I prefer @name and @depends fields so that it can be easily
>> maintained.)
> 
> This looks too complex. It would make sense only
> when this API has more users.
> 
> Also this won't be enough for the ftrace/livepatch callbacks.
> They need to be ordered against against each other. But they
> also need to be called before/after all other callbacks.
> For example, when the module is loaded:
> 
>     + 1st frace
>     + 2nd livepatch
>     + then other notifiers
> 
> See the commit c1bf08ac26e92122 ("ftrace: Be first to run code
> modification on modules").
> 
>> This would allow for better dependency building when adding to the list.
>   
>>>
>>> A concrete example is the ordering dependency between ftrace and
>>> livepatch during module load/unload. see the detail here [1].
>>
>> If this only concerns notification callback issues with the ftrace
>> and livepatch modules, it's far more robust to simply call the
>> necessary processing directly when the modules load and unload,
>> rather than registering notification callbacks externally.
>>
>> There are fprobe, kprobe and its trace-events, all of them are using
>> ftrace as its fundation layer. In this case, I always needs to
>> consider callback order when a module is unloaded.
>>
>> If ftrace is working as a part of module callbacks, it will conflict
>> with fprobe/kprobe module callback. Of course we can reorder it with
>> modifying its priority. But this is ugly, because when we introduce
>> a new other feature which depends on another layer, we need to
>> reorder the callback's priority number on the list.
>>
>> Based on the above, I don't think this can be resolved simply by
>> changing the list of notification callbacks to a bidirectional list.
> 
> I agree. I would keep it as is (hardcoded).
> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr
> 


Thanks for the feedback, the necessity doesn't convincing enough. I will 
try the proposal from Masami Hiramatsu.

Best regards,

Song