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 posting; Please let me know if this is useful or not. hid_output_report warning Warning at drivers/hid/hid-core.c:784 implement() 16 times last week <no specific version information available> More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=implement softlockup in tick_broadcast_oneshot_control 3 times last week Only seen in 2.6.24-rc4 so far More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2409 hiddev_ioctl crash 3 times last week Only seen in 2.6.24-rc3 so far More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2428 shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree crash BUG at fs/dcache.c:595 2 times last week Has been seen as far back as 2.6.18 More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2365 More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree cpufreq_remove_dev crash BUG at drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:1060 2 times last week Has been reported only for 2.6.24-rc4 More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=cpufreq_remove_dev More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2458 journal_dirty_data crash (tainted) BUG at fs/jbd/transaction.c:983 2 times last week Has been reported only in 2.6.23.9 http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=journal_dirty_data tcp_fastretrans_alert WARNING at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2533 tcp_fastretrans_alert() 2 times last week Has been reported in 2.6.24-rc4 and -rc5 More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=tcp_fastretrans_alert tcp_sacktag_one WARNING at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:1280 tcp_sacktag_one() Reported once Has only been seen in -rc5 so far More Info: ...
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 been omitted in collecting the top 10) > > This is the first such report that I'm posting; Please let me know if this is useful or not. I like! Good work. > cpufreq_remove_dev crash > BUG at drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:1060 > 2 times last week > Has been reported only for 2.6.24-rc4 > More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=cpufreq_remove_dev > More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2458 Patch pending. Already in -mm. Also sitting in Linus' inbox. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk --
Well that would have been fun to write. Does it watch https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bugme-new ? --
This looks great! I'd like to install and try this package on bugzilla... It looks like it can do all kinds of searches. --
FWIW I think this is incredibly useful, Arjan. Hoping we'll get the kerneloops tools into Fedora soon too. Jon. --
this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to distinguish a duplicate report from finding what exact kernel version an oops is from is... surprisingly hard. And to be honest, bugs against -mm are still very interesting, since they'll be for the same reason patched kernels are relevant. And if someone has a super weirdo kernel, That's half of what is done right now; they're not hidden though, just very clearly marked. --
Would be nice though to try to find duplicates like the example I gave. (The actual report and a reply was listed. The reply just had a full quote of the oops, with "> " prepended and perhaps lines wrapped.) Because if an oops is independently reported twice or more, this too says something about the issue. E.g. flaky RAM and such is pretty much eliminated as a possible cause. Anyway, someone who is actually interested in a particular oops and looks at the posts in your links quickly notices eventual duplicates. But it would be helpful to people who only have a quick glance at the bar graphs if you add a note of caution that the figures are not accurate and not representative, e.g. because of occasional duplicates. For the same reason, please don't write headings like "Oops statistics for kernel 2.6.23-release". Unless you mean "statistics" in a narrower sense like they do statistics in medicine and economics. ;-) Yes, they definitely are interesting. And it's the same like with the above issue: People who are genuinely interested in an oops find the necessary information at the details page. Separating them from mainline oopses would be a service though for people who want to - have a quick look at what's urgent and what's not so urgent, - draw conclusions about the state of the release candidates. So this is not that important. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== ==-- -==== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ --
