Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 17:55, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch
>
> I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This
> way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open
> to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error
> condition (FYI only)" be better?
Q: What do you expect users to do when they see the message?
A: Nothing. But when they tell me that sometimes they lose keystrokes I
can ask them if they see it in dmesg. And if they see it there is nothing
I can do. Again, if you could suggest a better wording that would not alarm
unsuspecting users that would be great.
If it is needed only to answer "does my keyboard work", maybe you could
store an error count in the driver, or put it to the event layer.
Coupled with a way to retrieve the value (ioctl+evtest,proc,sys,etc),
the user can get the information they need, but only when they actually
want it.
The networking subsystem seems to store a lot of its error conditions in
proc-accessible counters rather than printing a warning. Thus there is
precedent for avoiding dmesg spam in this way.
Just my $0.02
- Jim Bruce
-
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]
