Re: [patch] kernel events layer

[Robert Love <rml@ximian.com>]

On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 22:08 +0200, Rutger Nijlunsing wrote:

> So the events are some kind of structured printk()s, right? So why not
> printk() as a side-effect of sending an event. Then we could change
> relevant printk()s (but not the debug ones for example) and thereby
> remove the existing printk() and (re)structure them in the process.

I am not so sure I like this.  I want less printk's, not more.

Maybe we can add a send_event_and_printk() if the demand is high.  That
is fine, but I do not want the default events to cause printks.  Printks
are usually human readable sentences, change often, terribly unstable,
etc.  The events should be more basic and stable.


> And if this (together with a file-changed notifier) could help me stop
> polling 28 files once a second for events (/var/log recursively,
> /proc/modules, /proc/mounts, /proc/net/arp and 'netstat -ltup' output)
> I would be really happy...

That is the idea ;-)

	Robert Love