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 :-).
--
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
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 persuasiv
On Fri, 1 March 2013 11:11:58 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Joern Engel 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]
> > [
Joern Engel 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]
> [166135.634156]
> [166135.634177] Code: 00 00 55 48 89 e5 0f 1f 44 00
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]
[166135.634156]
[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
6 matches
Mail list logo
