Am Freitag 10 September 2010 schrieb Florian Mickler: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:18:49 +0200 > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Yes, I am aware that it may not be a Ext4 problem at all. Thus I said > > Ext4 / readahead related (!) backtrace (! not bug) cause that was > > all I could see on the screen. How else should I have described that > > backtrace when I can't speculate on what I can not see? > > I think, it is no big thing. The trick is probably to say nothing at > all about the cause, when it is not clear. It's a mind thing. As soon > as the association is brought up, everybody thinks along those lines. > :) > > If you leave out the "ext4/readahead related", then people will still > know that it might be ext4 readahead related because you posted the > backtrace, but they will not have their mind turned to that. Instead > they will think: oh a backtrace... there were some people shouting > about backtraces in my area, let's see if it is realted. OTOH I thought when I put in some keywords from the backtrace in my query it might get the attention of the right people. When I just say unknown backtrace, then I am adressing no one. > But of course, sometimes putting blame somewhere also does help getting > attention. After all "CORRUPTION IN FILESYSTEM XYZ" sticks out more > than "partial trace of a thing i don't know anything at all". I wouldn't do that for sensational purposes. Maybe next time: "Fails to boot with partially shown backtrace, with some ext4 / readahead function calls inside it"? Or even more general some I/O / filesystem related functions? -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7