On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:51:13 +0900 Keiichi KII <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I started to do some cleanups and fixups here, but abandoned it when it was > > all getting a bit large. > > > > Here are some fixes against this patch: > > I'm going to fix my patches by following your reviews and send new patches > on the LKML and the netdev ML in a few days. > Well.. before you can finish this work we need to decide upon what the interface to userspace will be. - The miscdev isn't appropriate - netlink remains a possibility - Stephen suggests an ioctl against a socket and davem suggests socket options, but it's unclear to me how that socket will get bound to netconsole? either way, I agree with the overall thrust of this work: netconsole is useful in production environments, can become more useful and will need runtime configurability. I wonder if we're approaching this in the right way, however... At a high level, netconsole is just a flow of UDP packets between two machines. The kernel already has rich and well-understood ways of creating and configuring such flows. So... instead of creating a brand new way of configuring such a flow via sysfs and ioctl, could we instead create a flow using the existing mechanisms (presumably the socket API) and then "transfer" the information from that flow over to netconsole by some means?? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
