Re: [patch] kernel events layer

Robert Love
2004-07-24T18:19:47Z

On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 10:46 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:

Hey, Tim.

> The things that do can use it, though. Here's a place where inconsistency
> (if present) is pointless.1

If some things can use the kobject path, we can use it in the argument
field. I am cool with that - that is exactly what I want, in fact. But
what we use as the naming convention needs to be something we can use
uniformly. Unfortunately not everything has a kobject backing it, and
we cannot change that.

> This immediately strikes me as a really bad idea. Stuff moves between
> files. Two files might really want to signal an event from the same
> source.

The signal name would be different.

> As long as we're religious about making every subsystem standardize these
> names, it should be ok. Another reason to macro-ize. There are way too
> many people touching too much code that might take advantage of a generic
> kernel->user event to rely on soft rules.

I like your macro-izing idea and the notion of standardizing. Someone
else brought up a good example: we want _all_ disk drivers to emit the
exact same signal for e.g. "disk full" so user-space can react to it.
It needs to be consistent. At least for driver error logging, we
definitely want standards and macro-izing. The translation point is
another good reason for it.

Robert Love