[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:0.050 / U:5.992 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site