Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:45:51 +0200 From: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, sean connolly <connollys1@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Automated kernel crash reporting system Message-ID: <cf9b1ee01003050745l7eadc484pd90deb086d45ab19@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003051115210.5181@fledge.watson.org> References: <cf9b1ee01003040409xeba9a74q60d0f3bbc039b147@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003040802540.46189@pragry.qngnvk.ybpny> <775910.52553.qm@web35807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003051115210.5181@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, sean connolly wrote: > >> Automatic reporting would end up being a mess given that panics can be >> caused by hardware problems. Having an autoreport check if memtest was run >> before it reports, or having it only run with -CURRENTmight be useful. I too, disagree with this. Surely most attention would be given to the most often recurring problems across varied hardware. If a new -RELEASE is tagged and suddenly there is an influx of very similar automated crash reports across a wide selection of hardware, some conclusions can be reached. - Sincerely, Dan Naumov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cf9b1ee01003050745l7eadc484pd90deb086d45ab19>