On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:21:10 -0600 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Pete/Piet Delaney <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Jason, Eric:
> >
> > Did you read Keith Owens suggestion on RAS tools from:
Yes. and I re-read it.
There are several things in Keith's email that make sense:
a. all RAS tools should use a common interface
b. it's not the kernel's job to decide which RAS tool runs first
Eric makes some good points too. I'm mostly similar to Eric:
paranoid about trusting software/hardware after a panic (or oops).
So if someone wants to use multiple RAS tools on a panic event,
enabling an admin to set priorities is OK with me, but I'll only
trust the first one that is used, and even that one may have
problems. IOW, I don't see a big need to support multiple RAS
tools at one time. (speaking for myself)
> So if someone who is suggesting an implementation can absorb
> and understand the requirements of the different groups and come
> up with solutions that meet the requirements of the different projects
> I think progress can be made. That as far as I know takes talent.
Ack that.
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
