From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268291AbUGXFP4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:15:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268292AbUGXFP4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:15:56 -0400 Received: from pimout2-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.101]:44466 "EHLO pimout2-ext.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268291AbUGXFPz (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:15:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:15:50 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Robert Love Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] kernel events layer Message-ID: <20040724051550.GA30718@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <1090604517.13415.0.camel@lucy> <20040723200335.521fe42a.akpm@osdl.org> <1090635297.1830.4.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1090635297.1830.4.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:14:57PM -0400, Robert Love wrote: > Predicting the future is hard, but I suspect this number to be > small. Let's say 10 in core kernel code? Seems fair. > If this takes off as a solution for error reporting, that number > will be much larger in drivers. This part worries me a lot. I would alsmost rather all possible messages get stuck somewhere common so driver writes can't add these ad-hoc and we can avoid a proliferation of either similar or pointless messages. Forcing these into a common place lets people eyeball if a new messages really is necessary --- and it makes writing applications to deal with these things easier (since you don't have to scan the entire kernel tree). --cw