[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F83F08E.6070304@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:34:22 +0200
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"shuahkhan@...il.com" <shuahkhan@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ramoops: use pstore interface
Il 09/04/2012 23:42, Luck, Tony ha scritto:
>> The patch breaks ramoops module unloading. Tony says there's "no
>> credible end-user case" for this and Marco promptly provided one,
>> which was ignored.
>
> I'm not sure that I understood Marco's use case. He said:
>
>> First of all ramoops was born mainly for debug purpose and
>> to help the maintainability of a product. I used it in systems
>> where the uptime (so no reboot) was important. So it can be
>> very useful for me load the module, gather logs and unload it
>> for example. A kernel panic is not recoverable so the reboot
>> is needed but it's not always true for a kernel oops.
>
> In the non-crashed oops case ... aren't all the logs you need
> in /var/log/messages?
>
> -Tony
Maybe you right, but it could be useful to have a "single log point"
especially for automatic/semi-automatic log gathering. I'm not sure we
can *always* read from messages in case of non-crashed oops. Sure, it
will be possible after a reboot, but if /var was mounted with tmpfs (on
embedded systems it's possible :)) we have no log.
PS: It's only a brainstorming on all the possible situation :)
Marco
--
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