On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 07:06:03 AM Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 10 February 2015 at 06:16, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Monday, February 09, 2015 11:13:51 PM Rui Paulo wrote: > >> Author: rpaulo > >> Date: Mon Feb 9 23:13:50 2015 > >> New Revision: 278479 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/278479 > >> > >> Log: > >> Notify devd(8) when a process crashed. > >> > >> This change implements a notification (via devctl) to userland when > >> the kernel produces coredumps after a process has crashed. > >> devd can then run a specific command to produce a human readable crash > >> report. The command is most usually a helper that runs gdb/lldb > >> commands on the file/coredump pair. It's possible to use this > >> functionality for implementing automatic generation of crash reports. > >> > >> devd(8) will be notified of the full path of the binary that crashed > >> and > >> the full path of the coredump file. > > > > I think this is a very useful feature and I think this is fine to be in > > the > > tree as-is for now. My only note is that this is a bit of feature creep > > for devd (this isn't a device notification, this is a system event > > notification). As such, I think it might be worth thinking if we > > (collectively) want to think about having a separate framework at all for > > system event notification. You could possibly publish other interesting > > events this way. For example, Isilon currently has a patch to log(9) > > Witness LORs. I personally think it's a bit hackish and potentially > > unreliable. A much nicer interface if you want to capture such things > > would be to publish an event for each logged LOR instead. Machine checks > > are another example of something that might be nice to publish (though > > you could possibly make the case that those would not be inappropriate to > > publish via devd since actual hardware is involved). Disk and PCI errors > > are another class of thing that it would be nice to publish in an easier > > to programmaticaly parse manner. > > Cool, so someone's going to add multi-subscriber support to /dev/devctl ?
Eh, devd publishes /var/run/devd.pipe already which supports multiple subscribers. I think that was one of the intentional design decisions was to handle multiple subscribers in userland rather than the kernel. > I think devd grows these things because it's easier than teaching the > devctl interface to support multiple listeners. That wasn't really my question. My question was if we want distinct streams or if we want want unified stream. Having a unified stream might very well make sense (and if so we could rename devd to make that more obvious). -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
