Joern Engel <[email protected]> writes:
> Blockconsole should really see every message ever printed. The
> alternative is to try debugging with information like this:
> [166135.633974] Stack:
> [166135.634016] Call Trace:
> [166135.634029] <IRQ>
> [166135.634156] <EOI>
> [166135.634177] Code: 00 00 55 48 89 e5 0f 1f 44 00 00 ff 15 31 49 80 00 c9 c3 66 66 66 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 55 48 89 e5 0f 1f 44 00 00
> [166135.634384] 48 8b 14 25 98 24 01 00 48 8d 14 92 48 8d 04 bd 00 00 00 00
What was your log level set to at the time? By default, all of the
information for a kernel panic should show up on the console, no?
Cheers,
Jeff
On Fri, 1 March 2013 11:11:58 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Joern Engel <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Blockconsole should really see every message ever printed. The
> > alternative is to try debugging with information like this:
> > [166135.633974] Stack:
> > [166135.634016] Call Trace:
> > [166135.634029] <IRQ>
> > [166135.634156] <EOI>
> > [166135.634177] Code: 00 00 55 48 89 e5 0f 1f 44 00 00 ff 15 31 49 80 00 c9 c3 66 66 66 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 55 48 89 e5 0f 1f 44 00 00
> > [166135.634384] 48 8b 14 25 98 24 01 00 48 8d 14 92 48 8d 04 bd 00 00 00 00
>
> What was your log level set to at the time? By default, all of the
> information for a kernel panic should show up on the console, no?
I believe it was the distro default, which should be 4. We used to
play silly games with setting the loglevel to "just send everything".
But that applies equally to all consoles, so you could no longer type
on the console and retain your sanity at the same time.
If you and/or other people are strongly opposed to the CON_ALLDATA
patches, I can either keep them private (we will never drop them from
our kernel) or add a config option.
Jörn
--
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one.
-- Voltaire
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:20:29AM -0500, Jörn Engel wrote:
> If you and/or other people are strongly opposed to the CON_ALLDATA
> patches, I can either keep them private (we will never drop them from
> our kernel) or add a config option.
We'll do that when someone comes up with a really persuasive reason why
blockconsole shouldn't log *all* messages. And, whatever we do, I don't
want to configure/set anything so that blockconsole logs everything - it
should be the default.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
On Fri, 1 March 2013 18:52:20 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:20:29AM -0500, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > If you and/or other people are strongly opposed to the CON_ALLDATA
> > patches, I can either keep them private (we will never drop them from
> > our kernel) or add a config option.
>
> We'll do that when someone comes up with a really persuasive reason why
> blockconsole shouldn't log *all* messages. And, whatever we do, I don't
> want to configure/set anything so that blockconsole logs everything - it
> should be the default.
For blockconsole I agree. Netconsole is the interesting one, because
CON_ALLDATA could be considered a regression for it.
Jörn
--
The key to performance is elegance, not battalions of special cases.
-- Jon Bentley and Doug McIlroy
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Jörn Engel wrote:
> For blockconsole I agree. Netconsole is the interesting one, because
> CON_ALLDATA could be considered a regression for it.
Yeah, that's why I suggested dropping 4/9 - nothing changes for
netconsole so that everyone can relax :-).
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--