Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:02:37 +0800 | From | Michael Clark <> | Subject | Re: [patch] kernel events layer |
| |
On 07/24/04 01:41, Robert Love wrote:
> @@ -59,9 +60,15 @@ > if (l & 0x1) { > printk(KERN_EMERG "CPU%d: Temperature above threshold\n", cpu); > printk(KERN_EMERG "CPU%d: Running in modulated clock mode\n", > - cpu); > + cpu); > + send_kmessage(KMSG_POWER, > + "/org/kernel/devices/system/cpu/temperature", "high", > + "Cpu: %d\n", cpu);
Should there be some sharing with the device naming of sysfs or are will we introduce a new one? ie sysfs uses:
devices/system/cpu/cpu0/<blah>
Would it be a better way to have a version that takes struct kobject to enforce consistency in the device naming scheme. This also means userspace would automatically know where to look in /sys if futher info was needed.
Question is does it make sense to use this infrastructure without sysfs as hald, etc require it. ie depends CONFIG_SYSFS
Perhaps a send_kmessage_kobject ?
~mc - 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/
| |