[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100129023327.021cb23d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:33:27 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@...insight.net>
Cc: dedekind1@...il.com,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide ways of crashing the kernel through debugfs
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:13:24 +0100 Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@...insight.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:38:02 +0200
> Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 10:53 +0800, Am__rico Wang wrote:
> > > > Well, it provides a few more ways of crashing the kernel. That's
> > > > basically the only additional feature you'll get.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I can see that, but why do I need to care how I crash the kernel
> > > as long as I can crash it in a way.
> >
> > But Simon did explain in his first e-mail why he cares. You or others
> > might care for similar reasons.
>
> Another argument for the patch is that it's simple and well-contained,
> it doesn't touch any other code apart from the driver itself.
>
> It is also easy to extend with other tests, e.g., provoking kernel
> hangs to test watchdogs and so on.
>
Yes, it's the sort of thing which lots of people have written
throw-away ad-hoc versions of. It probably makes sense to do it once,
do it right to save people from having to rererereinvent that wheel.
What do others think?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists