On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 15:53 +0200, holzheu wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:12 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 14:55 +0200, holzheu wrote:
> > > Hi Gerrit,
> > >
> > > The common thing of your and our approach is, that we need an ID to
> > > identify a message either by:
> >
> >
> > Maybe I am missing something big, but why is an ID needed?
> > The message IS the ID right? That's the only thing that is robust
> > against code moving about....
>
> Yes. As already discussed with Pavel, it is one option to use the format
> string of the message as message ID. The disadvantage compared to
> message IDs like hashes is, that format strings might be even less
> unique than hashes
if the hash comes from the string in the first place I have a hard time
believing that.
> and it's probably less convenient for searching by
> operators.
I'm not convinced of that...
>
> An operator has to issue either:
>
> >> info lp.4711
> or
> >> info "lp0: on fire"
well.... surely the messages are caught by some userspace program,
right? (like syslog).. that can do the lookup and make it all
conveniently lookup-able and cross-referencable etc etc....
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
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]
