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?
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??
-
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]
