On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:06:57 +0200, holzheu said: > They are used to that, because all other operating systems on that > platform like z/OS, z/VM or z/VSE have message catalogs with detailed > descriptions about the semantics of the messages. 25 years ago, I did OS/MVT and OS/VS1 for a living, so I know *all* about the infamous "What does IEF507E mean again?"... > In general we think, that also for Linux it is a good thing to have > documentation for the most important kernel/driver messages. Even > kernel hackers not always are aware of the meaning of kernel messages > for components, which they don't know in detail. Most of the messages > are self explaining but sometimes you get something like "Clocksource > tsc unstable (delta = 7304132729 ns)" and you wonder if your system is > going to explode. This is probably best addressed by cleaning up the actual messages so they're a bit more informative. > New macros KMSG_ERR(), KMSG_WARN(), etc. are defined, which have to be > used in printk. These macros have as parameter the message number and > are using a per c-file defined macro KMSG_COMPONENT. Gaak. *NO*. The *only* reason that the MVS and VM message catalogs worked at all is because each component had a message repository that went across *all* the source files - the instant you saw IEFnnns, you knew that IEF covered the job scheduler, nnn was a *unique* number, and s was a Severe/Warning/Info flag. IGG was always data management, and so on. This breaks horribly if you have 2 C files that define subtly different KMSG_COMPONENT values (or even worse, 2 or more duplicates). [/usr/src/linux-2.6.22-rc4-mm2] find . -name '*.c' | wc -l 9959 [/usr/src/linux-2.6.22-rc4-mm2] find . -name '*.h' | wc -l 9933 [/usr/src/linux-2.6.22-rc4-mm2] find . -type d | wc -l 1736 You plan to maintain message uniqueness how? [/usr/src/linux-2.6.22-rc4-mm2]1 find . -name '*.c' | sed -r 's?.*/([^/]*)?\1?' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head 105 setup.c 90 irq.c 66 time.c 58 init.c 50 inode.c 39 io.c 38 pci.c 37 file.c 32 signal.c 32 ptrace.c Looks like you're going to have to embed a lot of the path in that KMSG_COMPONENT to make it unique - and you want to keep that message under 80 or so chars total. > /** > * message > * @0: device number of device. > * > * Description: > * An operation has been performed on the msgtest device, but the > * device has not been set online. Therefore the operation failed If you don't understand 'Device /dev/foo offline', this description doesn't help any. And that's true for *most* of the kernel messages already - if you don't understand the message already, a paragraph explanation isn't going to help much. Consider the average OOPS message, which contains stuff like 'EIP=0x..'. Telling the user that EIP means Execution Instruction Pointer isn't likely to help - if they knew what the pointer *did*, they'd probably already know EIP. > * > * User Response: > * Operator should set device online. > * Issue "chccwdev -e <device number>". And this is where the weakness of this scheme *really* hits. I've actually run into cases where an operator followed the listed "Operator Response" for a "device offline", and issued a 'VARY 0C0,ONLINE'. And then we got a flood of I/O errors because the previous shift downed the device because it was having issues. The response the operator *should* have done is "assign a different tape drive, like, oh maybe the operational ones at 0C1 through 0C4"... And it's the same here - if you get a message that /dev/sdb1 has no media present, there's a good chance that you typo'ed, and meant /dev/sda1 or /dev/sdc1 So following the directions for 'sdb1 offline' and putting in a blank DVD because sdb is the DVD burner won't fix things if what you were trying to do is mkfs something on another disk... ;) And while we're at it, I'll point out that any attempt to "fix" the kernel messages on this scale had *better* solve all the I18N problems while we're there....
Attachment:
pgpHW1sB6AcWZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- From: holzheu <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- From: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- References:
- [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- From: holzheu <[email protected]>
- [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Force rcutorture tasks to spread over CPUs
- Next by Date: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Btrfs: a copy on write, snapshotting FS
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages
- Index(es):