apport-kerneloops reporting

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at
Mon Aug 8 16:05:24 UTC 2011

On 08/08/2011 09:25 AM, Brian Murray wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 08:12:04AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 09:55 AM, Brian Murray wrote:
>>> I've recently made some changes to kerneloops and apport which
>>> modify the way that kerneloops are reported.
>>> In kerneloops there is now a filter so that any Oops with the word
>>> WARNING in it is not sent to apport for reporting this should
>>> significantly reduce the quantity of apport-kerneloops bug reports
>>> you receive.
>>> The linux package hook for apport will now also tag
>>> apport-kerneloops bug reports using a format of
>>> 'kernel-driver-$drivername' if it detects a driver name in the RIP /
>>> IP line.  For example, is tagged
>>> kernel-driver-i915.  I also went through and tagged all existing Oops
>>> reports the same way and sent Leann a list of the tags that were
>>> used.
>>> Looking at the current list of apport-kerneloops reports from
>>> Oneiric[1] I have one suggestion and one question.
>>> Suggestion:
>>> The importance of these bug reports should be automatically set to
>>> at least High by whatever script does automatic triage.
>>> A question or two:
>>> I noticed there are a few NETDEV WATCHDOG bug reports in the list.
>> These appear to be triggered by one of several network drivers that
>> have various issues, some of which are being worked on. Its a
>> failure to transmit a packet when the network stack thinks its
>> should have been able to do so. As such its largely harmless and in
>> the same class as WARN.
>>> 1) Are these worth reporting?
> Based off your statement above it sounds like to me that these are not
> worth reporting and should be filtered out in kerneloops so that they do
> not end up in Launchpad.  Agreed?

Works for me.

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at

More information about the kernel-team mailing list