On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:30:00 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 00:19, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hmm... maybe what we can do is generating an uevent when an IRQ is > > confirmed to be bad and then let udev notify the user. That way we'll > > probably have better chance of getting bug reports and users have > > whiny but working system. > > Not really, uevents are not picked up by anything that could report an > error to userspace, they are just seen by udev. Also uevents are > usually not the proper passing method. They are not meant to ever > transport higher frequency events, or structured data. They cause to > run the entire udev rule matching machine, and update symlinks and > permissions with every event. > > We will need some better error reporting facility. On Linux you don't > even get notified when the kernel mounts your filesystem read-only > because of an error. It will only end up in 'dmesg' as a pretty much > undefined bunch of words. :) > > We will need some generic error reporting facility, with structured > data exported, and where userspace stuff can subscribe to. > Uevents/udev can not really properly provide such infrastructure. > Maybe that can be extended somehow, but using kobject_uevent() and > trigger the usual udev rule engine is not what we are looking for, for > sane error reporting. Random idea of the day (I don't know anything about it all): let the kernel connect to D-Bus and use it somehow? -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
