Re: [PATCH, RFC] panic-note: Annotation from user space for panics

[Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>]

Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 13:45 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> 2009/11/17 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>:
>
> We need to store this information of NAND flash. Implementing logs on
> NAND flash is about handling bad blocks, choosing format of records, and
> may be even handling wear-levelling. This is not that simple.
> 
> And then I have match oops to the userspace environment prints, using I
> guess timestamps, which is also about complications in userspace.
> 

Indeed my suggestion was to use a persistent ram, not difficult to use.

>>> This patch solves the problem gracefully, and I'd rather demand you to point what
>>> is the technical problem with the patches.
>>>
>> Simply because I think that we should avoid to include in the kernel
>> things we can do in a simply way at user space level.
> 
> If it is much easier to have in the kernel, then this argument does not
> work, IMHO.
> 
>>  I think this
>> patch is well done but it's one of the patches that are solutions "for
>> embedded only", but it's only my opinion.
> 
> Also IMHO, but having embedded-only things is not bad at all.
> 

In the past other patches are not accepted in main line for this, maybe
you'll be luckier.

Marco