On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:21:10 -0500
Matt Mackall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:15:26AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:51:13 +0900
> > Keiichi KII <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I started to do some cleanups and fixups here, but abandoned it when it was
> > > > all getting a bit large.
> > > >
> > > > Here are some fixes against this patch:
> > >
> > > I'm going to fix my patches by following your reviews and send new patches
> > > on the LKML and the netdev ML in a few days.
> > >
> >
> > Well.. before you can finish this work we need to decide upon what the
> > interface to userspace will be.
> >
> > - The miscdev isn't appropriate
> >
> > - netlink remains a possibility
> >
> > - Stephen suggests an ioctl against a socket and davem suggests socket
> > options, but it's unclear to me how that socket will get bound to
> > netconsole?
>
> Yeah, that's a bit of a head-scratcher.
>
> > either way, I agree with the overall thrust of this work: netconsole is
> > useful in production environments, can become more useful and will need
> > runtime configurability.
> >
> >
> > I wonder if we're approaching this in the right way, however...
> >
> > At a high level, netconsole is just a flow of UDP packets between two
> > machines. The kernel already has rich and well-understood ways of creating
> > and configuring such flows.
> >
> > So... instead of creating a brand new way of configuring such a flow via
> > sysfs and ioctl, could we instead create a flow using the existing
> > mechanisms (presumably the socket API) and then "transfer" the information
> > from that flow over to netconsole by some means??
>
> We don't really have anything that corresponds to netpoll's
> connections at higher levels.
>
> I'm tempted to say we should make this work more like the dummy
> network device. ie:
>
> modprobe netconsole -o netcon1 [params]
> modprobe netconsole -o netcon2 [params]
The configuration of netconsole's looks like the configuration of routes.
Granted you probably have more routes than netconsoles, but the interface
issues are similar. Netlink with a small application wouldn't be nice.
And having /proc/net/netconsole (read-only) would be good for the netlink
impaired.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
