Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status (kexec/kdump)

[Andrew Morton]

Vara Prasad <prasadav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think all the alternatives out there are less reliable than Kdump 
>  based on the design. Vendors are currently shipping other solutions 
>  since they didn't have any better alternatives until now. The existing 
>  solutions in the two major distro's doesn't work lot of times. I don't 
>  know what percentage of times they work as i only get involved when they 
>  don't work, but i can certainly tell you they don't work many a times. 
>  It is very embarrassing to tell the customer sorry we couldn't get dump 
>  can you try reproducing the problem again.  At least two major distros 
>  expressed interest in replacing their current solutions with kdump once 
>  it matures. As you are well aware we are doing testing with as many 
>  configurations as we can to iron out the bugs. Hope this addresses some 
>  of your concerns.

Yes, thanks.

And the meta-goodness here is that at least we have a *design* which is
acceptable from this-is-sane standpoint.  So at least everyone will be
pulling in the same direction.

So as I said, it's a bit of a bet at this point in time, but we've gone as
far as we can get with it out-of-tree, so let's merge it and hope that it
matures into an acceptably useful dumper.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/