[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFC: android logger feedback request
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:20:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:36:21 -0800 Tim Bird <> wrote:
> > On 12/21/2011 03:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > That all describes the current code, but you haven't described what's
> > > wrong with the existing syslog interface that requires this new driver
> > > to be written. And why can't the existing interface be fixed to address
> > > these (potential) shortcomings?
> >
> >
> > >> One specific question I have is where is the most appropriate
> > >> place for this code to live, in the kernel source tree?
> > >> Other embedded systems might want to use this system (it
> > >> is simpler than syslog, and superior in some ways), so I don't
> > >> think it should remain in an android-specific directory.
> > >
> > > What way is it superior?
> >
> > Here are some ways that this code is superior to syslog:
> It is certainly nice and simple. It really looks more like a filesystem than
> a char device though... though they aren't really files so much as lossy
> pipes. I don't think that's a problem though, lots of things in filesystems
> don't behave exactly like files.
> If you created a 'logbuf' filesystem that used libfs to provide a single
> directory in which privileged processes could create files then you wouldn't
> need the kernel to "know" the allowed logs: radio, events, main, system.
> The size could be set by ftruncate() (by privileged used again) rather than
> being hardcoded.
> You would defined 'read' and 'write' much like you currently do to create a list of
> datagrams in a circular buffer and replace the ioctls by more standard
> interfaces:
> LOGGER_GET_LOG_BUG_SIZE would use 'stat' and the st_blocks field
> LOGGER_GET_LOG_LEN would use 'stat' and the st_size field
> LOGGER_FLUSH_LOG could use ftruncate
> The result would be much the same amount of code, but an interface which has
> fewer details hard-coded and is generally more versatile and accessible.

But, almost all of this is already in the syslog system call today,
right? So why create a new user api for something we have?

greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-22 02:53    [W:0.114 / U:32.540 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site