On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:21:10 -0500 Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:15:26AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > 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? > > Yeah, that's a bit of a head-scratcher. > > > 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?? > > We don't really have anything that corresponds to netpoll's > connections at higher levels. > > I'm tempted to say we should make this work more like the dummy > network device. ie: > > modprobe netconsole -o netcon1 [params] > modprobe netconsole -o netcon2 [params] The configuration of netconsole's looks like the configuration of routes. Granted you probably have more routes than netconsoles, but the interface issues are similar. Netlink with a small application wouldn't be nice. And having /proc/net/netconsole (read-only) would be good for the netlink impaired. - 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
