On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:34:04 +1000 Keith Owens <kaos at ocs.com.au> wrote: > Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote: > >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <kaos at sgi.com> wrote: > > Switching to kaos at ocs.com.au, I just resigned from SGI. > > >> I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody > >> has different ideas, there is no overall plan and little interest from > >> Linus in getting RAS tools into the kernel. We are just thrashing. > > > >Lots of different groups, little commonality in their desired funtionality, > >little interest in sharing infrastructure or concepts. Sometimes people > >need a bit of motivational help. > > > >In this case that motivation would come from the understanding that all the > >RAS tools would be *required* to use such infrastructure if it was merged. > >Going off and open-coding your own stuff would henceforth not be acceptable. > >If it turns out that it really was unsuitable for a particular group's RAS > >feature, and we merged it anyway, well, that mismatch is that group's > >fault. > > > >It was a sizeable mistake to send those patches to a few obscure mailing > >lists - this is the first I've heard of it, for example. > > linux-arch is obscure?? Exceedingly. It's a way of contacting arch maintainers, that's all. It isn't really a place to discuss new infrastructural concepts which affect multiple features. > Where else do you send patches that affect > multiple architectures? This should have gone to linux-kernel. > >So. Please, send it all again, copy the correct lists and people, make sure > >that at least one client of the infrastructure is wired up and working (ideally, > >all such in-kernel clients should be wired up) and let's take a look at it. > > Already tried that. The only RAS tool that is currently in the kernel is > kexec/kdump and they insist on doing things their own way. That makes > it impossible to put a common RAS structure in place, because kexec > will not use it. eh, write the patch for them, let's look at how much impact it is likely to have. > Sorry to keep beating on this drum, but kexec insist that their code > must have priority and that they do not trust the rest of the kernel. > Until that changes, there is no point is discussing how to make kexec > coexist with other RAS tools. If kexec change their mind then we can > look at using a common RAS interface, otherwise it is a waste of time > and I have better things to do with my life. I saw one email from Vivek expressing on-general-principle concerns. It was hardly thorough or irreconcilable-looking. Let's drag this thing into the daylight and poke at it a bit.
