Re: comments re: Device Driver Hardening Design Spec
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:59:49 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel.hardened-drivers,gmane.linux.kernel.carrier-grade |
|---|---|
| Organization | MandrakeSoft |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Daniel E. F. Stekloff wrote: > 2) I also want to get rid of the clog of logging that's outlined in the > hardened driver specification. With all the UUIDs that must be passed with > every message, my log files get full and I have trouble sifting through it > all for the data I am looking for. I end up putting in printk's to get what I > want and ignoring the spec's messsaging. <grin> <chuckle> :) > As a side discussion - should we hammer out what interface would be good for > diagnostics? Ioctls or file system? I have been pushing the filesystem angle > because of the benefits driverfs gives us in 2.5. The ability to walk a tree > of devices and run diagnostics is a very useful feature. I am open, however, > to discussion. A filesystem isn't really an optimum interface for > diagnostics. Well, ioctls are evil, a Unix design mistake, and creating a custom filesystem is the ultimate in flexibility. So, there ya go :) Jeff ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf