Re: Automatic Kernel Bug Report

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 06:29:55AM -0400, Daniel Bonekeeper wrote:
>...
> Maybe less verbal. Another problem is that, depending on the
> situation, the problem may be serious enough to not allow a program in
> userspace to work (and therefore, not acknowledge the Oops nor send a
> bug report). Also, important information may not be available for
> userspace (imagine a machine where the kernel wasn't compiled with
> debug stuff, so those details are not exposed to userspace, but
> available at kernelspace). As far as I understood your script, it
> requires interactivity to work (so if we have a bunch of servers in a
> datacenter at 1k miles, we got a problem). My first idea was:
>...

I'm sorry for being so negative, but it seems you are overdesigning a 
solution for a non-existing problem:

There are cases where the machine is simply dead with exactly zero 
information. These are the really hard ones.

Then there are cases where the kernel is able to print a BUG() or Oops 
to a log file. Or the error message is printed to the screen and the 
user uses a digital camera and sends the photo.

The message is usually enough for starting to debug the problem or 
asking the user for additional information.

But most important, the problem lies in a completely different area:

Interaction between kernel devlopers and users is not a real problem.
The real problem is the missing developer manpower for handling bug 
reports.

> Daniel

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed