Re: [RFC, 6/7] NUMA hotplug emulator

[Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>]

>
> Maybe configfs isn't the way to go.  I just think extending the 'probe'
> file is a bad idea, especially in the way your patch did it.  I'm open
> to other alternatives.  Since this is only for testing, perhaps debugfs
> applies better.  What other alternatives have you explored?  How about a
> Systemtap set to do it? :)

First this is a debugging interface. It doesn't need to have the
most pretty interface in the world, because it will be only used for
QA by a few people.

Requiring setting parameters in two different file systems doesn't
sound that appealing to me.

systemtap for configuration also doesn't seem right.

I liked Dave's earlier proposal to do a command line parameter like interface
for "probe". Perhaps that can be done. It shouldn't need a lot of code.

In fact there are already two different parser libraries for this:
lib/parser.c and lib/params.c. One could chose the one that one likes
better :-)

Anything that needs a lot of code is a bad idea for this I think.
A simple parser using one of the existing libraries should be simple
enough though.

Again it's just a QA interface, not the next generation of POSIX.

-Andi

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>