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/
