Re: Magic SysRq +# in 2.4.9-ac/2.4.10-pre12

[Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher@datastacks.com>]

++ 26/09/01 22:38 +0200 - Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
> 
> > > 2.  I'd really prefer to see callers use
> > > register_sysrq_key() and unregister_sysrq_key() so that they
> > > can get/use return values, and not the lower-level functions
> > > "__sysrq*" functions that are EXPORTed in sysrq.c.
> > > I don't see a good reason to EXPORT all of these functions.
> > 
> > So would I, however, the lower interface is there so that modules can
> > restructure the table in more complex ways, allowing for sub-menus.
> 
> This is kernel, and sysrq was designed to be debug tool. It turned out
> to be more successfull than expected...
> 
> Just keep in mind its a debug tool. If you need hierarchical submenus,
> then you are probably not using it as debug tool, right?
> 								Pavel

Wrong. If I have heirarchal menus, then I can have debug code for many
parts of the kernel, and _detailed_ debug code for any given part, in
the sysrq handlers simultaneously.

-- 
Crutcher        <crutcher@datastacks.com>
GCS d--- s+:>+:- a-- C++++$ UL++++$ L+++$>++++ !E PS+++ PE Y+ PGP+>++++
    R-(+++) !tv(+++) b+(++++) G+ e>++++ h+>++ r* y+>*$