Re: Top 10 kernel oopses for the week ending January 5th, 2008

Arjan van de Ven
2008-01-08T18:21:48Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Cool.
>
> One thing I wonder about - could you separate out the bug-ons and warnings
> from the oopses? They really are different issues, and an oops with
> register information etc is very different from a BUG() with line numbers,
> which in turn is very different from a WARN_ON().

> and in fact three of those five entries are really WARN_ON's. It would be
> nicer if it would look more along the lines of
>
> Backtraces reported for kernel 2.6.24-rc7
>
>
> 4 oopses reported
>
> hfsplus_releasepage 3
> __hfs_brec_find 1
>
>
> 3 warnings repored
>
> enqueue_task 1
> lock_acquire 1
> __ieee80211_rx 1
>
> because those things really don't have the same kind of impact at all, and
> tend to be very different to debug (a "BUG_ON()" is perhaps somewhat
> closer to an oops, but a WARN_ON() is definitely in a class of its own).

the database has the information so it's just a matter of slightly different php code ;)
Before I do that... do you want the BUG's separate, part of the warnings or part of the oopses?
(I rather make this change once ;)

>
> On that "Code:" side, it seems there is still some problem with oops
> parsing. See for example:
>
> http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=1521&msgid=http://mid.gmane.org/20071017154655.GA13394@elte.hu
>
> and notice how the Code: never made it into the raw message (and thus
> there is also no instruction disassembly).

ok I'll fix this; I can fix this for all new entries at least, fixing retroactive is going to be
near impossible I suspect.