Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status (kexec/kdump)

Andrew Morton
2005-06-23T01:08:52Z

Vara Prasad <prasadav@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I think all the alternatives out there are less reliable than Kdump
> based on the design. Vendors are currently shipping other solutions
> since they didn't have any better alternatives until now. The existing
> solutions in the two major distro's doesn't work lot of times. I don't
> know what percentage of times they work as i only get involved when they
> don't work, but i can certainly tell you they don't work many a times.
> It is very embarrassing to tell the customer sorry we couldn't get dump
> can you try reproducing the problem again. At least two major distros
> expressed interest in replacing their current solutions with kdump once
> it matures. As you are well aware we are doing testing with as many
> configurations as we can to iron out the bugs. Hope this addresses some
> of your concerns.

Yes, thanks.

And the meta-goodness here is that at least we have a *design* which is
acceptable from this-is-sane standpoint. So at least everyone will be
pulling in the same direction.

So as I said, it's a bit of a bet at this point in time, but we've gone as
far as we can get with it out-of-tree, so let's merge it and hope that it
matures into an acceptably useful dumper.