[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49fw0f2m5r.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:08:00 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] printk: add CON_ALLDATA console flag
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:52:27AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> > For consoles like netconsole and blockconsole the loglevel filtering
>> > really doesn't make any sense. If a line gets printed at all, please
>> > send it down to that console, no questions asked.
>>
>> Could you please explain this a bit further? Why wouldn't you want to
>> allow the admin to filter log messages to the block or network console?
>> This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and in fact could cause
>> problems for netconsole now that you're potentially sending a ton more
>> traffic over the wire.
>
> Let's reverse the question: why would the admin ever want to filter
> messages to debugging consoles like netconsole or blockconsole?
>
> When running a debugging session, you generally want to see *all*
> messages.
People don't just use this for "debugging sessions." They use it in
production, and I already gave you one reason why you might not want to
do this with netconsole (udp is unreliable, and I've definitely seem
cases where netconsole suffered due to dropped packets; this won't make
that better, especially when you multiply the extra bytes times the
number of servers on the subnet).
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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