From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751019AbWIUHxz (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:53:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751023AbWIUHxz (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:53:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.10.82]:47850 "EHLO smtp.andrew.cmu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751016AbWIUHxy (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:53:54 -0400 Message-ID: <45124509.1050205@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:53:45 -0400 From: James Bruce User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060812) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel To: Dmitry Torokhov CC: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marek Vasut Subject: Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans (input patches) References: <20060920215507.GM1153@redhat.com> <200609202118.27741.dtor@insightbb.com> In-Reply-To: <200609202118.27741.dtor@insightbb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 17:55, Dave Jones wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > > remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch >> > >> > I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This >> > way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open >> > to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error >> > condition (FYI only)" be better? >> >> Q: What do you expect users to do when they see the message? > > A: Nothing. But when they tell me that sometimes they lose keystrokes I > can ask them if they see it in dmesg. And if they see it there is nothing > I can do. Again, if you could suggest a better wording that would not alarm > unsuspecting users that would be great. If it is needed only to answer "does my keyboard work", maybe you could store an error count in the driver, or put it to the event layer. Coupled with a way to retrieve the value (ioctl+evtest,proc,sys,etc), the user can get the information they need, but only when they actually want it. The networking subsystem seems to store a lot of its error conditions in proc-accessible counters rather than printing a warning. Thus there is precedent for avoiding dmesg spam in this way. Just my $0.02 - Jim Bruce