Re: [patch] kernel events layer

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:41:42AM -0400, Robert Love wrote:

> 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.

except we don't (usually) have daemons listening for printk strings
and doing something very specific based upon them such as scanning new
media

> 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.  etc.

by guess is most driver errors will belong to a small common subset

> 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.

all the more reason why they should be placed somewhere non-trivial so
we can discuss what exactly is required and suitable on a case-by-case
basis

my fear is that if we don't do this we will have n different events
for 'disk bad' for n different hba drivers (for example)


  --cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/