On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:54:45PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: >On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 13:29 -0700, Mike Waychison wrote: >> Mike Waychison wrote: >> > FWIW, another semantic difference between netconsole and netoops (that >> > I had missed in the last email) is filtering: we really do want to get >> > the whole log when a crash happens, debug messages and all. >> > Netconsole is subject to console filtering (which we _do_ want as >> > debug messages going out the uart slows the whole world down). >> > >> > netconsole and netoops _do_ have bits in common, for instance the >> > handling of NETDEV events and source+target configuration. I'd rather >> > those bits become common between the two than figure out how to jam >> > the semantics we need into netconsole. >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> I've been reading through the netconsole driver in response to Greg's >> comments on this thread, and it is definitely more robust in terms of >> configuration and handling of network device events than the netoops >> driver I proposed. > >I've been following the discussion to see if it went anywhere >interesting.. > >> What are your thoughts on extending netconsole with the same sort of >> semantics that are in the netoops patchset? > >My first thought is that it's a bit unfortunate that some of the the >netconsole configgy bits weren't implemented in a generic way that would >be applicable to other netpoll clients. Some people have never gotten it >into their heads that netconsole isn't the only client. > Really? What are other clients? I remember netdump *was* one client, but it is not in upstream and is deprecated, so netconsole is the only client in tree, AFAIK. >> I'd still like to have blit-dmesg-to-the-network-on-oops semantics, >> which seems doable by having a per-target flag for streaming of console >> messages (enabled by default) and a flag to emit a structured full dmesg >> dump (disabled by default). > >I'd actually like to see you go forward with netoops. It's clear to me >that it's a different beast and complexifying netconsole with a bunch of >weird new options doesn't really sit well. If that means abstracting >some of the sysfs crap from netconsole, great. > That would be good. >That said, I don't think netoops is an ideal name, given how closely >bound oops _events_ are with their textual output. Presumably it covers >events other than oopsen like panics too. > >Regarding rolling oopses: lots of machines regularly survive oopses, so >I think you ought to consider rate-limiting them (to a configurable rate >with a very low default) rather than suppressing all but the first. > We have WARN_ONCE(), maybe we can make one oops_once()... At least, that is not hard. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
