Re: [patch] kernel events layer

[Robert Love <rml@ximian.com>]

On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 22:15 -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> This part worries me a lot.  I would alsmost rather all possible
> messages get stuck somewhere common so driver writes can't add these
> ad-hoc and we can avoid a proliferation of either similar or pointless
> messages.

I would be for this, although the situation is really no different than
today with printk()'s, which I would hope could be replaced in some
cases with the events (an either-or kind of deal).  Dunno.

> Forcing these into a common place lets people eyeball if a new
> messages really is necessary --- and it makes writing applications to
> deal with these things easier (since you don't have to scan the entire
> kernel tree).

This is a good idea for other reasons, too: the common base of errors
could be certified as supported by the error daemon, translated, etc.
etc.

I am not sure how realistic this goal is, but I do like it, at least for
the general case of the usual errors in drivers.

	Robert Love