From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] panic-note: Annotation from user space for panics
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:45:02 +0100
Message-ID: <2ea1731b0911170445x13225c19w797388d2211de2d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091112021322.GA6166@dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net>
	 <4AFC4D31.2000101@gmail.com>
	 <20091112215649.GA28349@dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net>
	 <20091113091031.3f6d4bba@marrow.netinsight.se>
	 <1258112748.21596.1227.camel@localhost> <4AFE6A14.4010507@gmail.com>
	 <1258447997.27437.76.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=9KyZe48bZVMlo3AzVCfVeC8EblJsgZLSYVaU7HbBUvc=;
        b=YynRdV3dqJ5Ld5iXaMsp1mL6sEBhDX3+7nvPWrTNoRhGVf8J0KLj9kFB+/2sDj9u+0
         npx9Lv6NhdNcPkn5x7EYiMxuJdTLzip0swtQwwepNODlRPzKGWMJh+HYHCB7I6AMbmLN
         pYzDhOC/44M5SKkJIWhUfKpnUBi2cffqCeXIA=
In-Reply-To: <1258447997.27437.76.camel@localhost>
Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-embedded.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@netinsight.net>, David VomLehn <dvomlehn@cisco.com>, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dwm2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.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