Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm take4 2/6] support multiple logging

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:15:26AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:51:13 +0900
> Keiichi KII <k-keiichi@bx.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I started to do some cleanups and fixups here, but abandoned it when it was
> > > all getting a bit large.
> > > 
> > > Here are some fixes against this patch:
> > 
> > I'm going to fix my patches by following your reviews and send new patches 
> > on the LKML and the netdev ML in a few days.
> > 
> 
> Well..  before you can finish this work we need to decide upon what the
> interface to userspace will be.
> 
> - The miscdev isn't appropriate
> 
> - netlink remains a possibility
> 
> - Stephen suggests an ioctl against a socket and davem suggests socket
>   options, but it's unclear to me how that socket will get bound to
>   netconsole?

Yeah, that's a bit of a head-scratcher.

> either way, I agree with the overall thrust of this work: netconsole is
> useful in production environments, can become more useful and will need
> runtime configurability.
> 
> 
> I wonder if we're approaching this in the right way, however...
> 
> At a high level, netconsole is just a flow of UDP packets between two
> machines.  The kernel already has rich and well-understood ways of creating
> and configuring such flows.
> 
> So...  instead of creating a brand new way of configuring such a flow via
> sysfs and ioctl, could we instead create a flow using the existing
> mechanisms (presumably the socket API) and then "transfer" the information
> from that flow over to netconsole by some means??

We don't really have anything that corresponds to netpoll's
connections at higher levels.

I'm tempted to say we should make this work more like the dummy
network device. ie:

modprobe netconsole -o netcon1 [params]
modprobe netconsole -o netcon2 [params]

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.