On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Mark Lord <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10-11-20 02:11 AM, huang ying wrote: >> >> I think the BIOS error should be reported to hardware vendor instead >> of software vendor. Do you think so? > > If you (and the code) are absolutely certain that a particular error > instance > is totally due to the BIOS, then stick the words "BIOS ERROR" into the > printk(). > > Problem solved. > > And in the even that the diagnosis is wrong, the rest of us will still > have the complete picture of what happened from dmesg, rather than seeing > random kernel errors (from other code) happen later without knowing there > was some kind of BIOS or hardware fault that triggered it. > > Having them all in one place is rather useful. > And you can still configure rsyslogd to _also_ send the BIOS/hardware > errors to a separate destination, if that turns out to be useful. I have no objection to report hardware errror with printk too. But we need a user space hardware error daemon too, which needs a tool-oriented interface. Do you think printk is a good interface for tool to extract and parse error records? I think it is mainly human oriented. Best Regards, Huang Ying -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
