From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nivedita Singhvi Subject: Re: patch for common networking error messages Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:07:04 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3EEE5BA8.8000601@us.ibm.com> References: <20030616.152745.124055059.davem@redhat.com> <3EEE4880.3080505@us.ibm.com> <20030616.155251.25131382.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: girouard@us.ibm.com, stekloff@us.ibm.com, janiceg@us.ibm.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, lkessler@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030616.155251.25131382.davem@redhat.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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