>> This seems a novel use of uevent ... is it OK, or is is abuse? > > Don't create "novel" uses of uevents. They are there to express a > change in state of a device so that userspace can then go and do > something with that information. If that pattern fits here, wonderful. Maybe Dan will chime in here to better explain his idea. I think for the case where the core test fails, there is a good match with uevent. The device (one CPU core) has changed state from "working" to "untrustworthy". Userspace can do things like: take the logical CPUs on that core offline, initiate a service call, or in a VMM cluster environment migrate work to a different node. > I doubt you can report "test results" via a uevent in a way that the > current uevent states and messages would properly convey, but hey, maybe > I'm wrong. But here things get a bit sketchy. Reporting "pass", or "didn't complete the test" isn't a state change. But it seems like a poor interface if there is no feedback that the test was run. Using different methods to report pass/fail/incomplete also seems user hostile. > good luck! Thanks ... we may need it :-) -Tony
