Messages in this thread | | | From | Jeff Moyer <> | Date | Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:56:46 -0400 | Subject | Re: [3/4] [PATCH]Diskdump - yet another crash dump function |
| |
==> Regarding Re: [3/4] [PATCH]Diskdump - yet another crash dump function; Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> adds:
mingo> * Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> Btw, now that we got you in the loop, any chance to see a forward-port >> of netdump to 2.6? I think diskdump and netdump could share a lot of >> infrastructure, and given we already have the net polling hooks adding >> netdump shouldn't be that much work anymore.
mingo> i think a forward port of netdump might already exist - Jeff, Dave?
Yes, I ported the code forward to 2.6. The netpoll infrastructure needed a little tweaking to accommodate netdump, but nothing major. Namely, we need to reset some locks, and I added an element to the netpoll data structure for the dump function. I also updated the zap_completion_queue function to touch the nmi watchdog.
mingo> i agree that netdump and diskdump should be merged. (Red Hat is mingo> involved in the diskdump project too so this is an ultimate goal mingo> even though the patches are divergent.) Basically diskdumping is mingo> another IO transport - the format, userspace tools and much of the mingo> non-IO kernel mechanism is shared. Diskdumping is more complex on mingo> the driver level and it also needs to be more careful because it mingo> writes to media so it verifies various assumptions by reading mingo> on-disk sectors before writing to the area.
I'm not quite sure what infrastructure would be shared between the two. Page selection, perhaps? Anything else?
-Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |