Matt Mackall wrote:
Blech. Invoking the random pool machinery at oops time is moderately
safe, but not very shiny. Going through all the sprintf ugliness to
format it to an irrelevant UUID standard is not very shiny either. At
least refactor it so it's not duplicating code.
And I'd much rather
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> Well, Matt took over maintenance of the /dev/random driver, but my
> take on it is that code readability is more important that saving a
> few bytes of generated code or speed; the code paths are only executed
> once, so it's hardly a fast path.
Matt Mackall wrote:
Might as well leave out the null UUID, no sense in claiming to have
one when you don't. It's easy for a parser to cut on "^---["
one can't cut on that since that's also the start marker.
Yes it's possible to leave it out entirely, and thus have 2 different
terminators over
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:58:54PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
>>> in the spirit of uuid's.
>> Heh. UUID's don't have to be
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:06:14AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>+char *get_boot_uuid(void)
> >>+{
> >>+ static char target[38];
> >>+ unsigned char *uuid;
> >>+
> >>+ if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
> >>+
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
+char *get_boot_uuid(void)
+{
+ static char target[38];
+ unsigned char *uuid;
+
+ if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
+ generate_random_uuid(sysctl_bootid);
+ /* sysctl_bootid is signed, to print
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:58:54PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
> >>in the spirit of uuid's.
> >
> >Heh. UUID's don't have to be
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:36:31PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:23:31 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and
> > > warning reports
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 21:31 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
> > in the spirit of uuid's.
>
> Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable; just universally unique.
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 21:31 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
in the spirit of uuid's.
Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable; just universally unique. Code
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:36:31PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:23:31 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and
warning reports from various
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:58:54PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
in the spirit of uuid's.
Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable;
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
+char *get_boot_uuid(void)
+{
+ static char target[38];
+ unsigned char *uuid;
+
+ if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
+ generate_random_uuid(sysctl_bootid);
+ /* sysctl_bootid is signed, to print
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:06:14AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
+char *get_boot_uuid(void)
+{
+ static char target[38];
+ unsigned char *uuid;
+
+ if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
+
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:58:54PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
in the spirit of uuid's.
Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable; just
Matt Mackall wrote:
Might as well leave out the null UUID, no sense in claiming to have
one when you don't. It's easy for a parser to cut on ^---[
one can't cut on that since that's also the start marker.
Yes it's possible to leave it out entirely, and thus have 2 different
terminators over
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
Well, Matt took over maintenance of the /dev/random driver, but my
take on it is that code readability is more important that saving a
few bytes of generated code or speed; the code paths are only executed
once, so it's hardly a fast path.
Quite
Matt Mackall wrote:
Blech. Invoking the random pool machinery at oops time is moderately
safe, but not very shiny. Going through all the sprintf ugliness to
format it to an irrelevant UUID standard is not very shiny either. At
least refactor it so it's not duplicating code.
And I'd much rather
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
in the spirit of uuid's.
Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable; just universally unique. Code
on the other hand should be readable.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
> in the spirit of uuid's.
Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable; just universally unique. Code
on the other hand should be readable. :-)
If you want
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
+char *get_boot_uuid(void)
+{
+ static char target[38];
+ unsigned char *uuid;
+
+ if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
+ generate_random_uuid(sysctl_bootid);
+ /* sysctl_bootid is signed, to print
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> +char *get_boot_uuid(void)
> +{
> + static char target[38];
> + unsigned char *uuid;
> +
> + if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
> + generate_random_uuid(sysctl_bootid);
> + /* sysctl_bootid is signed, to print we need unsigned
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:26:46 -0800
"Tony Luck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 3:17 PM, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Tony Luck wrote:
> > >> + static char target[80];
> > > ...
> > >> + sprintf(target,
> > >>
On Dec 17, 2007 3:17 PM, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tony Luck wrote:
> >> + static char target[80];
> > ...
> >> + sprintf(target,
> >> "%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-"
> >> + "%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x",
> >
> > [80] is
Tony Luck wrote:
+ static char target[80];
...
+ sprintf(target, "%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-"
+ "%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x",
[80] is overkill ... [37] bytes should be enough (unless I went
cross-eyed counting the "%02x" :-)
%02x
> + static char target[80];
...
> + sprintf(target, "%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-"
> + "%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x",
[80] is overkill ... [37] bytes should be enough (unless I went
cross-eyed counting the "%02x" :-)
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:36:31PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Subject: [patch] terminate the oops printing with a defined string/uuid
> From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Right now, it's hard for automated tools to determine when an oops has
> ended; there's no clear marker for
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:23:31 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and
> > warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is
> > a top 10 list of the oopses
Zach Brown wrote:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to
distinguish a duplicate report from
two reports of the same bug.
Can we hack some data in to oops output to help? Say a giant
>> Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
>> same report.¹
>
> this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to
> distinguish a duplicate report from
> two reports of the same bug.
Can we hack some data in to oops output to help? Say a giant
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
> list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to
> 2.6.23 have been omitted in
Stefan Richter wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
> good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>
>> > Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
>> > good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
>> >
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> > Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
> > good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
> > untainted kernel was
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
untainted kernel was found.
I
Jon Masters wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
untainted
Stefan Richter wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to
2.6.23 have been omitted in collecting
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to
distinguish a duplicate report from
two reports of the same bug.
Can we hack some data in to oops output to help? Say a giant per-boot
Zach Brown wrote:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to
distinguish a duplicate report from
two reports of the same bug.
Can we hack some data in to oops output to help? Say a giant
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:23:31 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and
warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is
a top 10 list of the oopses collected in
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:36:31PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Subject: [patch] terminate the oops printing with a defined string/uuid
From: Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right now, it's hard for automated tools to determine when an oops has
ended; there's no clear marker for this.
+ static char target[80];
...
+ sprintf(target, %02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-
+ %02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x,
[80] is overkill ... [37] bytes should be enough (unless I went
cross-eyed counting the %02x :-)
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from
Tony Luck wrote:
+ static char target[80];
...
+ sprintf(target, %02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-
+ %02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x,
[80] is overkill ... [37] bytes should be enough (unless I went
cross-eyed counting the %02x :-)
%02x
On Dec 17, 2007 3:17 PM, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Luck wrote:
+ static char target[80];
...
+ sprintf(target,
%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-
+ %02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x,
[80] is overkill ... [37] bytes
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:26:46 -0800
Tony Luck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 3:17 PM, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tony Luck wrote:
+ static char target[80];
...
+ sprintf(target,
%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-
+
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
+char *get_boot_uuid(void)
+{
+ static char target[38];
+ unsigned char *uuid;
+
+ if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
+ generate_random_uuid(sysctl_bootid);
+ /* sysctl_bootid is signed, to print we need unsigned .. */
+
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
+char *get_boot_uuid(void)
+{
+ static char target[38];
+ unsigned char *uuid;
+
+ if (sysctl_bootid[8] == 0)
+ generate_random_uuid(sysctl_bootid);
+ /* sysctl_bootid is signed, to print
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
in the spirit of uuid's.
Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable; just universally unique. Code
on the other hand should be readable. :-)
If you want
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
which also gets bonus points for being totally unreadable, and thus 100%
in the spirit of uuid's.
Heh. UUID's don't have to be readable; just universally unique. Code
on the other hand should be readable.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
> good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
> untainted kernel was found.
I disagree with this. It's useful to have a "we've seen
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
untainted kernel was found.
I disagree with this. It's useful to have a we've seen this
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
>> same report.
>
> this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to
> distinguish a duplicate report from two reports of the same bug.
Would be nice though to
Stefan Richter wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas;
A few comments:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
this is true however
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas;
A few comments:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
Reports against 2.6.X-rcY-mmZ are listed in
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas;
A few comments:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
Reports against 2.6.X-rcY-mmZ are listed in the
Stefan Richter wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas;
A few comments:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
this is true however
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Stefan Richter wrote:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.
this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to
distinguish a duplicate report from two reports of the same bug.
Would be nice though to try to
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:36 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas
Well that would have been fun to write. Does it watch
On Dec 14, 2007 1:57 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:36 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> > reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas
>
> Well that would
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 10:46 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
> list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to 2.6.23
> have been
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:36 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas
Well that would have been fun to write. Does it watch
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:46:36AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
> list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to 2.6.23
> have
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to 2.6.23 have been omitted in collecting the top 10)
This is the first such report that I'm
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to 2.6.23 have been omitted in collecting the top 10)
This is the first such report that I'm
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:46:36AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to 2.6.23
have
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:36 -0800 Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas
Well that would have been fun to write. Does it watch
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 10:46 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to 2.6.23
have been omitted
On Dec 14, 2007 1:57 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:36 -0800 Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas
Well that would have been fun
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:36 -0800 Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas
Well that would have been fun to write. Does it watch
70 matches
Mail list logo
