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: ...
[ message continues ]

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
--

[ message continues ]

Well that would have been fun to write.  Does it watch
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bugme-new ?
--

[ message continues ]

This looks great! I'd like to install and try this package on
bugzilla... It looks like it can do all kinds of searches.
--

[ message continues ]

FWIW I think this is incredibly useful, Arjan. Hoping we'll get the
kerneloops tools into Fedora soon too.

Jon.


--

[ message continues ]

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.
--

[ message continues ]

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/
--

[ message continues ]