From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar  5 15:46:05 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12131065692;
	Fri,  5 Mar 2010 15:46:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dan.naumov@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-yx0-f184.google.com (mail-yx0-f184.google.com
	[209.85.210.184])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530FC8FC22;
	Fri,  5 Mar 2010 15:46:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yxe14 with SMTP id 14so710357yxe.16
	for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:45:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
	:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=mvmtalmtT0nCKn1rMnp/rROLsmO5R8/khAH2/NkUPnQ=;
	b=hZLc1i915VG2ZL+LuxzCEC34VYzvrSMobZ5zN4eY0KuuFhAxq7L+IuHiC4llm8xi4b
	IUEo6NK87raNoGGPzvKGVVzBW8vzQx3BGU2Qa2SIdnYXC0VhU/Z5yn8cRqlYZwed2nJ4
	fS9Bk8zTxCg94zUxKJeLbPTMNgNiOG/Mfxk5s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	b=Y85KuT9T+oNF6J7ifd3C25fpwrvE8w7tuKIW8U9rN3AzPraT6E9m2JC3tjYkyBE8ty
	rsCpboRxXcJb5/6pvhHI6ci/E8Iqkmj2KhDzzRdAOBOybpO6RZurQJsePVT4iMLazle3
	QqAEyn15VGqJhWS6M2JZi+TABT3473/e484kQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.134.13 with SMTP id l13mr2737965ann.160.1267803951302; 
	Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:45:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003051115210.5181@fledge.watson.org>
References: <cf9b1ee01003040409xeba9a74q60d0f3bbc039b147@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1003040802540.46189@pragry.qngnvk.ybpny>
	<775910.52553.qm@web35807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1003051115210.5181@fledge.watson.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:45:51 +0200
Message-ID: <cf9b1ee01003050745l7eadc484pd90deb086d45ab19@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>,
	freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, sean connolly <connollys1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Automated kernel crash reporting system
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:46:05 -0000

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, sean connolly wrote:
>
>> Automatic reporting would end up being a mess given that panics can be
>> caused by hardware problems. Having an autoreport check if memtest was run
>> before it reports, or having it only run with -CURRENTmight be useful.

I too, disagree with this. Surely most attention would be given to the
most often recurring problems across varied hardware. If a new
-RELEASE is tagged and suddenly there is an influx of very similar
automated crash reports across a wide selection of hardware, some
conclusions can be reached.


- Sincerely,
Dan Naumov