[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Merging relayfs?

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > Hi Andrew, can you please merge relayfs? It provides a low-overhead
> > > logging and buffering capability, which does not currently exist in
> > > the kernel.
> >
> > While the code is pretty nicely in shape it seems rather pointless to
> > merge until an actual user goes with it.
> Ordinarily I'd agree. But this is a bit like kprobes - it's a funny thing
> which other kernel features rely upon, but those features are often ad-hoc
> and aren't intended for merging.

I agree with Christoph, I'd like to see a small (and useful) example
included, which can be used as reference. relayfs client still need some
code of their own to communicate with user space. If I look at the example
code I'm not really sure netlink is a good way to go as control channel.
kprobes has a rather simple interface, relayfs is more complex and I think
it's a good idea to provide some sane and complete example code to copy

Looking through the patch there are still a few areas I'm concerned about:
- the usage of atomic_t look a little silly, there is only a single
writer and probably needs some cache line optimisations
- I would prefer "unsigned int" over just "unsigned"
- the padding/commit arrays can be easily managed by the client
- overwrite mode can be implemented via the buffer switch callback

In general I'm not against merging, but I have a few ideas for further
cleanups/optimisations and it really would help to have some useful
example code (e.g. a _simple_ event tracer).

bye, Roman
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: 2005-07-14 15:30    [W:0.098 / U:2.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site