brian at canonical.com
Mon Aug 8 15:25:54 UTC 2011
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, http://launchpad.net/bugs/814460 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
> >Looking at the current list of apport-kerneloops reports from
> >Oneiric I have one suggestion and one question.
> >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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the kernel-team