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

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

2009/11/17 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>:
> Take a look at my mails where I describe different complications we have
> in our system. We really want to have an OOPS/panic + our environment
> stuff to go together, at once. This makes things so much simpler.
>
> Really, what is the problem providing this trivial panic-note
> capability, where user-space can give the kernel a small buffer, and ask
> the kernel to print this buffer at the oops/panic time. Very simple and
> elegant, and just solves the problem.
>
> Why perversions with time-stamps, separate storages are needed?
>
> IOW, you suggest a complicated approach, and demand explaining why we do
> not go for it. Simply because it is unnecessarily complex.

I don't think it's a complicated approach we are talking of a system
log like syslog with a temporal information, nothing more.

> 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. 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.

Marco