Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:54:14 -0400 (EDT) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: what's next for the linux kernel? |
| |
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Chase Venters wrote:
> As for error messages... the equivalent of the Linux kernel panic is basically > the Windows BSOD. Neither one of them should appear in the day to day use of > the system as they indicate bugs. Linux is actually the clear winner here, I > think, because a Windows BSOD gives you a single hex code and no indication > of what happened, except for very vague codes like > "PAGE_FAULT_IN_NON_PAGED_AREA". I'd much rather have a backtrace :) In any > case, I'm watching the work on kdump with a keen interest. >
And what about kexec? To be able to boot into another kernel on a kernel bug and still have access to all the memory and the system state of the bug. That's pretty cool. It would be like Windows going straight to Safe-Mode on a BSOFD without a reboot.
> In any case, I think pretty much all of this work lives outside the kernel. > There is one side note I'd make about booting - my own boot process has to > wait forever for my Adaptec SCSI controller to wake up. It would be > interesting if bootup initialization tasks could be organized into dependency > levels and run in parallel, though as I'm a beginner to the workings of the > kernel I'm not entirely sure how possible this would be. >
I've been thinking of at least trying to see what would happen if I threaded the do_initcalls in main.c but lately I haven't had the time.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |