Re: [PATCH v1 00/12] netoops support
From: Mike Waychison <hidden>
Date: 2010-11-04 17:21:23
Also in:
lkml
Américo Wang wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:54:45PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:quoted
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 13:29 -0700, Mike Waychison wrote:quoted
Mike Waychison wrote:quoted
FWIW, another semantic difference between netconsole and netoops (that I had missed in the last email) is filtering: we really do want to get the whole log when a crash happens, debug messages and all. Netconsole is subject to console filtering (which we _do_ want as debug messages going out the uart slows the whole world down). netconsole and netoops _do_ have bits in common, for instance the handling of NETDEV events and source+target configuration. I'd rather those bits become common between the two than figure out how to jam the semantics we need into netconsole.Hi Matt, I've been reading through the netconsole driver in response to Greg's comments on this thread, and it is definitely more robust in terms of configuration and handling of network device events than the netoops driver I proposed.I've been following the discussion to see if it went anywhere interesting..quoted
What are your thoughts on extending netconsole with the same sort of semantics that are in the netoops patchset?My first thought is that it's a bit unfortunate that some of the the netconsole configgy bits weren't implemented in a generic way that would be applicable to other netpoll clients. Some people have never gotten it into their heads that netconsole isn't the only client.Really? What are other clients? I remember netdump *was* one client, but it is not in upstream and is deprecated, so netconsole is the only client in tree, AFAIK.
I see the bonding and bridging drivers using netpoll.
quoted
quoted
I'd still like to have blit-dmesg-to-the-network-on-oops semantics, which seems doable by having a per-target flag for streaming of console messages (enabled by default) and a flag to emit a structured full dmesg dump (disabled by default).I'd actually like to see you go forward with netoops. It's clear to me that it's a different beast and complexifying netconsole with a bunch of weird new options doesn't really sit well. If that means abstracting some of the sysfs crap from netconsole, great.That would be good.quoted
That said, I don't think netoops is an ideal name, given how closely bound oops _events_ are with their textual output. Presumably it covers events other than oopsen like panics too. Regarding rolling oopses: lots of machines regularly survive oopses, so I think you ought to consider rate-limiting them (to a configurable rate with a very low default) rather than suppressing all but the first.We have WARN_ONCE(), maybe we can make one oops_once()... At least, that is not hard.