Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] kernel events layer | From | Robert Love <> | Date | Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:19:43 -0400 |
| |
On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 10:46 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
Hey, Tim.
> The things that do can use it, though. Here's a place where inconsistency > (if present) is pointless.1
If some things can use the kobject path, we can use it in the argument field. I am cool with that - that is exactly what I want, in fact. But what we use as the naming convention needs to be something we can use uniformly. Unfortunately not everything has a kobject backing it, and we cannot change that.
> This immediately strikes me as a really bad idea. Stuff moves between > files. Two files might really want to signal an event from the same > source.
The signal name would be different.
> As long as we're religious about making every subsystem standardize these > names, it should be ok. Another reason to macro-ize. There are way too > many people touching too much code that might take advantage of a generic > kernel->user event to rely on soft rules.
I like your macro-izing idea and the notion of standardizing. Someone else brought up a good example: we want _all_ disk drivers to emit the exact same signal for e.g. "disk full" so user-space can react to it. It needs to be consistent. At least for driver error logging, we definitely want standards and macro-izing. The translation point is another good reason for it.
Robert Love
- 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/
| |