Automated kernel crash reporting system
jhelfman at e-e.com
Thu Mar 4 18:57:41 UTC 2010
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:50:56AM -0800, sean connolly thus spake:
>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 only slightly disagree, in that in a production environment it may be
useful to have the information regardless of the branch to report to an
internal company e-mail address.
But, maybe there is a routine for -CURRENT to go to @freebsd, in addition to
an internal address.
Just some thoughts...
>From: jhell <jhell at DataIX.net>
>To: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov at gmail.com>
>Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org>; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 8:06:50 AM
>Subject: Re: Automated kernel crash reporting system
>On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:09, dan.naumov@ wrote:
>> I noticed the following on the FreeBSD website:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/ideas.html#p-autoreport Has
>> there been any progress/work done on the automated kernel crash
>> reporting system? The current ways of enabling and gathering the
>> information required by developers for investigating panics and
>> similar issues are unintuitive and user-hostile to say the least and
>> anything to automate the process would be a very welcome addition.
>> - Sincerely,
>> Dan Naumov
>I am assuming that the output of crashinfo_enable="YES" is not what you
>are talking about is it ? are you aware of it ?
>The info contained in the crashinfo.txt.N is pretty informative for
>developers, maybe your talking about another way of submitting it ?
>freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions