On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:49:35PM -0700, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:37:36PM -0700, Eugene Surovegin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:22:25PM -0700, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > Which would I rather have: > > > > > > "netconsole never catches my oopses, it's useless." > > > > > > "netconsole didn't work with my driver, so I tried another card and it > > > works great." > > > > Well, not all world which uses Linux is PC with PCI slots. In fact, > > there are much more non-PC devices (where you have SoC with built-in > > Ethernet) with Linux than PCs with Linux. > > Let me try that again: > > Which would I rather have: > > "netconsole never catches my oopses, it's useless." > > "netconsole didn't work with my driver, but it works with other > drivers just fine."
I'd rather have "netconsole which works partially with my driver as well". I don't quite understand, you _already_ have deferred processing in netpoll (btw, how good this will work with kgdboe?). If some drivers cannot handle *additional* restriction (nowhere documented, btw), ok, let's have a fallback mode for them, which you _already_ have. It's amazing, frankly, you insist that this feature "works just fine", but fail to realize that this might be just luck (or maybe even not true, and hidden bugs are just waiting to be discovered), and some future change in any of these drivers may change this situation, because, as I said, additional restrictions aren't even documented, and driver writer is free to use Documentation/networking/netdevices.txt as a guide. -- Eugene - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
