[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Magic SysRq +# in 2.4.9-ac/2.4.10-pre12
++ 26/09/01 22:38 +0200 - Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
> > > 2. I'd really prefer to see callers use
> > > register_sysrq_key() and unregister_sysrq_key() so that they
> > > can get/use return values, and not the lower-level functions
> > > "__sysrq*" functions that are EXPORTed in sysrq.c.
> > > I don't see a good reason to EXPORT all of these functions.
> >
> > So would I, however, the lower interface is there so that modules can
> > restructure the table in more complex ways, allowing for sub-menus.
> This is kernel, and sysrq was designed to be debug tool. It turned out
> to be more successfull than expected...
> Just keep in mind its a debug tool. If you need hierarchical submenus,
> then you are probably not using it as debug tool, right?
> Pavel

Wrong. If I have heirarchal menus, then I can have debug code for many
parts of the kernel, and _detailed_ debug code for any given part, in
the sysrq handlers simultaneously.

Crutcher <>
GCS d--- s+:>+:- a-- C++++$ UL++++$ L+++$>++++ !E PS+++ PE Y+ PGP+>++++
R-(+++) !tv(+++) b+(++++) G+ e>++++ h+>++ r* y+>*$
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.162 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site