[cgl_discussion] Re: [Hardeneddrivers-discuss] comments re: Device Driver Hardening Design Spec

Jeff Garzik jgarzik at pobox.com
Tue Sep 24 12:59:49 PDT 2002

Daniel E. F. Stekloff wrote:
> 2) I also want to get rid of the clog of logging that's outlined in the 
> hardened driver specification. With all the UUIDs that must be passed with 
> every message, my log files get full and I have trouble sifting through it 
> all for the data I am looking for. I end up putting in printk's to get what I 
> want and ignoring the spec's messsaging. <grin>

<chuckle>  :)

> As a side discussion - should we hammer out what interface would be good for 
> diagnostics? Ioctls or file system? I have been pushing the filesystem angle 
> because of the benefits driverfs gives us in 2.5. The ability to walk a tree 
> of devices and run diagnostics is a very useful feature. I am open, however, 
> to discussion. A filesystem isn't really an optimum interface for 
> diagnostics.

Well, ioctls are evil, a Unix design mistake, and creating a custom 
filesystem is the ultimate in flexibility.  So, there ya go :)


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list