Re: [evlog-dev] evlog module

Ok, i think i get it now.   Plus, our ongoing
discussion with our H/W vendor and this whole
RedHat support thing is changing the landscape
on us.  We're no longer going to get customized
or hardened drivers from our hw vendor because
RH doesn't approve.  So our use of evlog is
then transitioning into some sort of IPC 
mechanism for applications to use... which is
not where I was hoping to go with this. 

Even if we could figure something out here,
we're still in the same boat with LKCD.  :)

Thanks!

/steve




--- Larry Kessler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve Woodruff wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Larry,
> > 
> > Addressing your points:
> > 
> > 1) i think *I* could live without the early boot
> >    messages.  our use of evlog is based on having
> >    one of our evlog plugins receive events and
> >    then do "stuff".  During boot time we can't
> >    do that "stuff" since it requires our other
> >    user-space applications to be up and running.
> >    Having evlog as a module would give an option
> >    for those like me who can afford to miss those
> >    early messages.
> 
> It certainly would be possible to implement as a
> module,
> but read my next answer.  Perhaps some of my
> assumptions
> are incorrect.
> 
> > 
> > 2) I'm not sure i understand.  Where are we
> defining
> >    new logging functions?  In evlog?  User apps?
> 
> Based on your next statement below, I think you are 
> assuming that an evlog kernel module could work
> without
> _any_ changes in bzImage at all.  So then how could
> you
> hook into the printk() message stream for forwarding
> 
> printk without patching printk.c ? 
> 
> If you decided you want evl_writek() for logging
> binary 
> data, don't you need to include it in a header file
> that's
> picked-up when you create bzImage ?
> 
> OTOH, if your driver was built as a module, and
> called
> a function in the evlog module (which was loaded
> first),
> then this scenario just might work.  Is this what
> you have
> in mind ?  
> 
> > 
> > From what our hardware vendor tells us, RH simply
> > will not support any kernel that they didn't
> > compile.  
> 
> Yes, I understand.  We indirectly have ongoing
> discussions
> with RH.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Larry
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =
> Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> evlog-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/evlog-developers


=====
----------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Woodruff, N9OH @ 42.18N 88.34W, [email protected]

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com