On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 23:13 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 07:38:14PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > As valuable as I obviously believe this project is, is there actually
> > anything that warrants discussion at the Kernel Summit?  It seems like
> > something to Just Do[TM].
> 
> I believe there is actually a key part of this discussion to have at
> Kernel Summit.  We don't need to discuss the technical details of the
> implementation; we do need to discuss the implications of enabling mass
> oops-reporting, the infrastructure and information we want to include in
> codes valid for the next decade or so, the tradeoffs between ease of
> reporting and value of the reports, some potential approaches to
> aggregate the date, and similar.

In particular, can we avoid the silly trap of the ---[cut here]--- which
comes between a kernel oops, and the potentially useful messages that
were printed right before it.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com                              Intel Corporation