Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] core: Add kernel message dumper to call onoopses and panics

[Ingo Molnar]

* Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:09 +0200, Simon Kagstrom wrote:
> > The core functionality is implemented as per Linus suggestion from
> > 
> >   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2009-October/027620.html
> > 
> > (with the kmsg_dump implementation by Linus). A struct kmsg_dumper has
> > been added which contains a callback to dump the kernel log buffers on
> > crashes. The kmsg_dump function gets called from oops_exit() and panic()
> > and invokes this callbacks with the crash reason.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Anders Grafstrom <anders.grafstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > The bikeshed paint is drying:
> > 
> > ChangeLog:
> > 	* (Ingo Molnar): Flatten lock use
> > 	* (Artem, Aaro): Fix style issues
> > 
> >  include/linux/kmsg_dump.h |   44 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/panic.c            |    3 +
> >  kernel/printk.c           |  112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 include/linux/kmsg_dump.h
> 
> I wonder, via which tree this should go in. We are going to have mtdoops
> depend on this. Should we go one of these ways:
> 
>    * this patch goes to one of Ingo's tip trees, so we can pull it and
>      work on top.
>    * we have Ingo's / Linus' acks, and this goes via the MTD tree.
> ?

Either way is good to me. Linus, do you have any preferences?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/