From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: Top 10 kernel oopses for the week ending January 5th, 2008 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:16:38 -0800 Message-ID: <4783BE06.1070507@linux.intel.com> References: <477FF149.4070609@linux.intel.com> <20080105213935.GN27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080107174431.GC27741@fieldses.org> <4782CF9C.6000508@gmail.com> <20080108081401.d9576ac5.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <4783B602.1050307@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Randy Dunlap , Kevin Winchester , "J. Bruce Fields" , Al Viro , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , NetDev To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:31523 "EHLO fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754044AbYAHSVT (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:21:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.