Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:16:38 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: Top 10 kernel oopses for the week ending January 5th, 2008 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > Cool. > > One thing I wonder about - could you separate out the bug-ons and warnings > from the oopses? They really are different issues, and an oops with > register information etc is very different from a BUG() with line numbers, > which in turn is very different from a WARN_ON().
> and in fact three of those five entries are really WARN_ON's. It would be > nicer if it would look more along the lines of > > Backtraces reported for kernel 2.6.24-rc7 > > > 4 oopses reported > > hfsplus_releasepage 3 > __hfs_brec_find 1 > > > 3 warnings repored > > enqueue_task 1 > lock_acquire 1 > __ieee80211_rx 1 > > because those things really don't have the same kind of impact at all, and > tend to be very different to debug (a "BUG_ON()" is perhaps somewhat > closer to an oops, but a WARN_ON() is definitely in a class of its own).
the database has the information so it's just a matter of slightly different php code ;) Before I do that... do you want the BUG's separate, part of the warnings or part of the oopses? (I rather make this change once ;)
> > On that "Code:" side, it seems there is still some problem with oops > parsing. See for example: > > http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=1521&msgid=http://mid.gmane.org/20071017154655.GA13394@elte.hu > > and notice how the Code: never made it into the raw message (and thus > there is also no instruction disassembly).
ok I'll fix this; I can fix this for all new entries at least, fixing retroactive is going to be near impossible I suspect.
| |