On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:21:10 -0600 Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Pete/Piet Delaney <pete at bluelane.com> writes: > > > Jason, Eric: > > > > Did you read Keith Owens suggestion on RAS tools from: Yes. and I re-read it. There are several things in Keith's email that make sense: a. all RAS tools should use a common interface b. it's not the kernel's job to decide which RAS tool runs first Eric makes some good points too. I'm mostly similar to Eric: paranoid about trusting software/hardware after a panic (or oops). So if someone wants to use multiple RAS tools on a panic event, enabling an admin to set priorities is OK with me, but I'll only trust the first one that is used, and even that one may have problems. IOW, I don't see a big need to support multiple RAS tools at one time. (speaking for myself) > So if someone who is suggesting an implementation can absorb > and understand the requirements of the different groups and come > up with solutions that meet the requirements of the different projects > I think progress can be made. That as far as I know takes talent. Ack that. --- ~Randy
