Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
> Hi Theodore,
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > P.S. There are some such RAS features which I wouldn't be surprised
> > there being interest in having integrated into the kernel directly
> > post-2.4, with no need to put in "kernel hooks" for that particular
> > feature. A good example of that would be kernel crash dumps. For
> > all Linux houses which are doing support of customers remotely,
> > being able to get a crash dump so that developers can investigate a
> > problem remotely instead of having to fly a developer out to the
> > customer site is invaluable. In fact, it might be considerd more
> > valuable than the kernel debugger....
>
> *Yes* :-)
As soon as I finish writing raw write disk routines (not using kiobufs),
we can _maybe_ get LKCD accepted one of these days, especially now that we
don't have to build 'lcrash' against a kernel revision. I'm in the
middle of putting together raw IDE functions now -- see LKCD mailing
list for details if you're curious.
IMHO, GKHI is a good thing -- it would be great to see this used for
ASSERT() cases (something you can turn on by 'insmod assert.o', which
would then trigger assert conditionals throughout the kernel ...) I
realize it would mean some bloat, and I doubt Linus would accept it,
but it's a nifty concept for enterprise Linux servers (especially
those that want quick answers to system crashes).
--Matt
> Greetings
> Christoph
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
