![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hello Satyam, > Hmm, I might've missed this thread, but my opinion on the > alternatives, fwiw: > > 1. I think adding new ioctl's to the kernel are generally disliked for > obvious reasons. Perhaps Stephen meant to add some generic > ioctl's above (and not separate ones specially implemented for > the dynamically reconfigurable netconsole driver)? You're right. At first, I implemented ioctls to misc device because of using misc sysfs. But, Andrew Morton said "Using an ioctl() against a miscdev is rather untypical for networking.". So, I implemented ioclts to tty_driver. > Please do consider configfs. Note that we'll have to lose the sysfs > symlink from your target's kobject to the kobject of the ethernet > device if we switch to configfs, but was that symlink needed for > some essential functionality or was it simply for informational > purpose? IMHO, this patchset only needs to bring in functionality > to be able to create, destroy, and modify netconsole targets at > run-time, and all these reconfiguration tasks would be handled > quite well by configfs, AFAICT. It was for informational pupose. But, if we used symlink to the net_device kobject in sysfs, we could easily keep up with changing network device name by changing symbolic link. In the case of configfs, Do we use config_item related to the network interface because the configfs doesn't have symlink that refers to net_device kobject (e.g. "network_interface" in configfs, "network_interface" value is "eth0")? I'm going to search configfs and modify interface to configfs. Thanks -- Keiichi KII NEC Corporation OSS Platform Development Division E-mail: k-keiichi@bx.jp.nec.com - 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: 2007-06-21 11:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||