Re: patch for common networking error messages

Nivedita Singhvi
2003-06-16T23:54:14Z

David S. Miller wrote:

> There would be absolutely ZERO disruption if you guys would use you
> brains and implement what you're actually trying to achieve, a system
> event logging mechanism.

> We have a message queueing mechanism using sockets, called netlink,
> and you can make whatever actions in the kernel you think should be
> monitored go and stuff messages into this system event netlink socket.

I should clarify here that I was speaking strictly for my lonesome sorry
self :), and have no knowledge of what the state of the various
RAS projects currently are, and the approaches they are trying..
For all I know, they may be currently trying precisely that..

Janice's patch is the first I've seen in this area (Luckily,
most of the time they keep me in a cave :) :)), and I do
appreciate *something* being done in this area, it seemed a
good start and really, I dont care how its implemented, I'll
leave that to the folks who have spent longer than the
8 mins I currently have on it..

> Then, you don't have to standardize a bunch of absolutely silly
> strings (I mean, the concept is so incredibly stupid), you get events
> that are in a precisely defined format going over this netlink socket.

Well, right now, thats all we have, right? Silly strings? But
thats not really my position, which is more like:
Whatever! Whatever! Somebody! Make it so! :) :).

> Then whoever in userspace reads out the messages can interpret them
> however the fuck it wants to. It is then trivial to parse the
> messages and filter them. Furthermore, you could even transmit such
> messages over a network connection to a remote logging server as-is.
>
> And hey, look, for network links going up and down we have the hooks
> already. Funny that...

OK, that is a good idea.. :)

thanks,
Nivedita