[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] kernel events layer
    On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 22:15 -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

    > This part worries me a lot. I would alsmost rather all possible
    > messages get stuck somewhere common so driver writes can't add these
    > ad-hoc and we can avoid a proliferation of either similar or pointless
    > messages.

    I would be for this, although the situation is really no different than
    today with printk()'s, which I would hope could be replaced in some
    cases with the events (an either-or kind of deal). Dunno.

    > Forcing these into a common place lets people eyeball if a new
    > messages really is necessary --- and it makes writing applications to
    > deal with these things easier (since you don't have to scan the entire
    > kernel tree).

    This is a good idea for other reasons, too: the common base of errors
    could be certified as supported by the error daemon, translated, etc.

    I am not sure how realistic this goal is, but I do like it, at least for
    the general case of the usual errors in drivers.

    Robert Love

    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 14:04    [W:0.021 / U:13.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site