Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:19:27 -0500 | From | Hubertus Franke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] relayfs (1/4) (Documentation) |
| |
David S. Miller wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:32:28 +0000 > Richard J Moore <rasman@uk.ibm.com> wrote: > > >>Interesting, that assumes sequential processing, if not semi-synchronous >>processing of events on the receiver side, which is far from guaranteed when >>considering low-level tracing especially for flight-recorder applications. > > > With netlink you may receive the data asynchronously however you > wish after you've requested a dump. > > I would like to ask that you go study how netlink works and is used > by things like routing daemons before we discuss this further as > it looks to me like half the conversation is going to be showing > you how netlink works. And hey there's even an RFC on netlink :) > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
Dave, is there a short write-up (2-3 pages) about netlink. I like to get a quick understanding about it and how it measures up to relayfs or vice versa. From some of the discussions here I get the feeling that they simply might address orthogonal issues.
I recently started using relayfs for various projects after hearing about it at OLS'03. I often need to get information out of the kernel (either debugging in interrupt/scheduling context thus preempting use of printk) or other information for data recording (call it trace or whatever). I don't want to use existing "media" (e.g. syslog) as it either clobbers up that media or I have to search for the information I have put in or the format (typically char) is not appropriate for my use. I simply want a dedicated channel to get to the data in the format that I select.
I found relayfs extremely easy to use. Channel setup is a breeze. User level consumption is through file operations. IMHO it just simply can not get any simpler that this.... It works in interrupt/scheduling context. Has extremely low overhead and is stable. I really would like to see relayfs be picked up. Its a loadable filesystem that at least to this user has provided some real value, so why would inclusion be so difficult/objectable.
You providing a short document might help me get an appreciation for your argument.
-- Hubertus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |