On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 23:23 -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > Well, that's really a core problem. We don't want to duplicate > > infrastructure, which practically does the same. So if relayfs isn't > > usable in this kind of situation, it really raises the question whether > > relayfs is usable at all. We need to make relayfs generally usable, > > otherwise it will join the fate of devfs. > > Hmm, coming from you I will take this is a pretty strong endorsement > for what I was suggesting earlier: provide a basic buffering mode > in relayfs to be used in kernel debugging. However, it must be > understood that this is separate from the existing modes and ltt, > for example, could not use such a basic infrastructure. If this is > ok with you, and no one wants to complain too loudly about this, I > will go ahead and add this to our to-do list for relayfs.
This implies to seperate - infrastructure - event registration - transport mechanism tglx - 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/
