Re: Oops assist... [New idea]

Manfred Spraul (manfreds@colorfullife.com)
Sat, 08 May 1999 15:23:05 -0400


Alexander Viro wrote:
> "Fast" reboot is fast only because Windows doesn't do fsck. BTW,
> writing to disk after oops may be dangerous or not, but dirty reboot
> definitely *is* dangerous. So the whole idea looks pretty bogus.

1) I abandoned my idea because I forgot LOADLIN, and because it would
be i386 only.
2) "Fast" reboot means that we could modify sys_reboot(): instead of
forcing a cold boot, we could reload lilo.
This had nothing to do with oops - these where 2 independant ideas.
Sorry, this was just a wild idea, I should have thought about it
a bit longer.

But I do think that as soon as add more semaphores to the filesystem
and if we implement journaling for ext[2,3], then we must also modify
the oops-logging implementation.
a) restart immediately (at least a compile option)
transaction tracked systems have no problems with crashes,
but they can't handle unreliable execution.
b) store the oops report without touching VFS.

Regards,
Manfred

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/