lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] relayfs (1/4) (Documentation)
    David S. Miller wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:32:28 +0000
    > Richard J Moore <rasman@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Interesting, that assumes sequential processing, if not semi-synchronous
    >>processing of events on the receiver side, which is far from guaranteed when
    >>considering low-level tracing especially for flight-recorder applications.
    >
    >
    > With netlink you may receive the data asynchronously however you
    > wish after you've requested a dump.
    >
    > I would like to ask that you go study how netlink works and is used
    > by things like routing daemons before we discuss this further as
    > it looks to me like half the conversation is going to be showing
    > you how netlink works. And hey there's even an RFC on netlink :)
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    >

    Dave, is there a short write-up (2-3 pages) about netlink.
    I like to get a quick understanding about it and how it measures
    up to relayfs or vice versa. From some of the discussions here I get
    the feeling that they simply might address orthogonal issues.

    I recently started using relayfs for various projects after hearing
    about it at OLS'03. I often need to get information out of the kernel
    (either debugging in interrupt/scheduling context thus preempting use
    of printk) or other information for data recording (call it trace or
    whatever).
    I don't want to use existing "media" (e.g. syslog) as it either clobbers
    up that media or I have to search for the information I have put in or
    the format (typically char) is not appropriate for my use. I simply want
    a dedicated channel to get to the data in the format that I select.

    I found relayfs extremely easy to use. Channel setup is a breeze.
    User level consumption is through file operations. IMHO it just simply
    can not get any simpler that this....
    It works in interrupt/scheduling context. Has extremely low overhead
    and is stable. I really would like to see relayfs be picked up.
    Its a loadable filesystem that at least to this user has provided
    some real value, so why would inclusion be so difficult/objectable.

    You providing a short document might help me get an appreciation for
    your argument.

    -- Hubertus

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.024 / U:2.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site