[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 :)
Jeff
More information about the cgl_discussion
mailing list