Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:38:14 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Magic SysRq +# in 2.4.9-ac/2.4.10-pre12 |
| |
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 -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - 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/
|  |