Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/12] netoops support
Date: Wednesday 3rd November 2010 20:54:45 UTC (over 7 years ago)
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. > 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 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. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.