On 23/08/07, Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris Snook <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Wrapping a single printk that's unrelated to debugging in an #ifdef
> > CONFIG_* or a sysctl strikes me as abuse of those configuration
> > facilities.
>
> Abuse, probably not (if a thing is required on one system and must
> not be on another, it has to be configurable). If the printk is
> a good idea... IMHO hardly, at best. We don't warn about trying to
> write to /vmlinuz after all.
>
> ulimit/pam_limits should fix the (IMHO nonexistent) problem nicely.
> One has to plug all the holes, though (e.g. $HOME/.forward).
> --
> Krzysztof Halasa
> -
> 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/
>
Hi,
I agree with Chris on this point, it seems like this sort of detection
(and reporting) should be a job for a user-space daemon, rather than
polluting kernel code (and logs) with warning messages of this sort...
I don't think the type of warning this patch yields is appropriate for
kernel logs, nor do I think the kernel should be the entity to decide
that this warning should be given.
It _feels_ wrong.
--
Regards,
Tom Spink
University of Edinburgh
-
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]
