Re: [PATCH v1 00/12] netoops support

[Mike Waychison]

Américo Wang wrote:
> 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 see the bonding and bridging drivers using netpoll.

> > > 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-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/