From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XlJPP-0004F8-Md for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:19:08 +0000 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:18:37 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel, add panic_on_warn Message-ID: <20141103151837.GA22503@redhat.com> References: <1414688627-5298-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <20141031015843.GW9743@dangermouse.emea.sgi.com> <545783FA.4050508@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <545783FA.4050508@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Prarit Bhargava Cc: Jonathan Corbet , isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, Andi Kleen , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fabian Frederick , jbaron@akamai.com, "H. Peter Anvin" , Masami Hiramatsu , Andrew Morton On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 08:32:42AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 10/30/2014 09:58 PM, Hedi Berriche wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 17:06 Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > | There have been several times where I have had to rebuild a kernel to > > | cause a panic when hitting a WARN() in the code in order to get a crash > > | dump from a system. Sometimes this is easy to do, other times (such as > > | in the case of a remote admin) it is not trivial to send new images to the > > | user. > > | > > | A much easier method would be a switch to change the WARN() over to a > > | panic. This makes debugging easier in that I can now test the actual > > | image the WARN() was seen on and I do not have to engage in remote > > | debugging. > > > > Do we want to leave it to usersspace[1] to ensure panic_on_warn is out > > of the way in when the kdump kernel boots? or would a self-contained > > approach be more preferable i.e. test whether we're a kdump kernel > > before bothering with panic_on_warn? > > Hmm ... this is a good point. Vivek, do you have a preference? I'm willing to > code it either way. I should be able to put in a is_kdump_kernel() check > without any problems but I'm not sure if that is the right thing to do here. > I think it will make sense to modify user space scripts to get rid of panic_on_warn for kdump kernel. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec