Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:08:41 -0400 | From | Crutcher Dunnavant <> | Subject | Re: 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 <crutcher@datastacks.com> 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 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/
|  |