On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:52:01AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Yes. And the unidentified feature is NLKD. But as with other notifiers (most
> notably the module unload one), all reasonable kernel debuggers should
> need them (or do explicit patching of the mentioned source files). As I
> explained
>> Am I to conclude then that there's no point in addressing the issues other
>> people pointed out? While I (obviously, since I submitted the patch
>> disagree),
>> I'm not certain how others feel. My main point for disagreement here is (I'm
>> sorry to repeat this) that as long as certain code
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:52:01AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
Yes. And the unidentified feature is NLKD. But as with other notifiers (most
notably the module unload one), all reasonable kernel debuggers should
need them (or do explicit patching of the mentioned source files). As I
explained
Am I to conclude then that there's no point in addressing the issues other
people pointed out? While I (obviously, since I submitted the patch
disagree),
I'm not certain how others feel. My main point for disagreement here is (I'm
sorry to repeat this) that as long as certain code isn't
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 18:24 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 12:26 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
> > > in task handling functions, it
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:47:00 -0800 Matt Helsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> ...
> > > Am I to conclude then that there's no point in addressing the issues other
> > > people pointed out? While I (obviously, since I submitted the patch
> > > disagree),
> > > I'm not certain how others
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 14:14 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:38:03 +
> "Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 25.12.07 23:05 >>>
> > >On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >wrote:
> > >
>
On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 12:26 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
> > in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
> > these components can
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:03:09 -0600
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > What are those (unidentified) add-on features doing at present?
> > Patching calls into fork.c/exec.c/exit.c?
>
> Most likely. I suspect we have general agreement and awareness
> that such patching is
Andrew wrote:
> What are those (unidentified) add-on features doing at present?
> Patching calls into fork.c/exec.c/exit.c?
Most likely. I suspect we have general agreement and awareness
that such patching is not something that sells well in Linux-land.
And for good reason in my personal view
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:38:03 +
"Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 25.12.07 23:05 >>>
> >On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
>>> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 25.12.07 23:05 >>>
>On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
>> > in task
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 25.12.07 23:05
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:38:03 +
Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 25.12.07 23:05
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
With more and more
Andrew wrote:
What are those (unidentified) add-on features doing at present?
Patching calls into fork.c/exec.c/exit.c?
Most likely. I suspect we have general agreement and awareness
that such patching is not something that sells well in Linux-land.
And for good reason in my personal view ...
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:03:09 -0600
Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew wrote:
What are those (unidentified) add-on features doing at present?
Patching calls into fork.c/exec.c/exit.c?
Most likely. I suspect we have general agreement and awareness
that such patching is not
On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 12:26 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
these components can use
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 14:14 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:38:03 +
Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 25.12.07 23:05
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 18:24 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 12:26 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it seems
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
> > in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
> >
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:26:21 + Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
these
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
> in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
> these components can use instead of having them all patch themselves
> directly into core
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:11:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
these components can use instead of having them all patch themselves
directly into core
>Yes, but why export variables? Wouldn't it be better to export
>an API?
>
>That simplifies the callers (they all pass "current" as task
>and "task_notifier_list" as arguments).
>
>It also prevents exposing internal variables (notifier lists
>ARE internal variables) to modules.
>
>What do you
Hi Jan,
I like and support your idea!
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Jan Beulich wrote:
> With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
> in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
> these components can use instead of having them all patch
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
these components can use instead of having them all patch themselves
directly into core files.
Patch 1 introduces the base definitions and hooks for task
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
these components can use instead of having them all patch themselves
directly into core files.
Patch 1 introduces the base definitions and hooks for task
Hi Jan,
I like and support your idea!
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Jan Beulich wrote:
With more and more sub-systems/sub-components leaving their footprint
in task handling functions, it seems reasonable to add notifiers that
these components can use instead of having them all patch
Yes, but why export variables? Wouldn't it be better to export
an API?
That simplifies the callers (they all pass current as task
and task_notifier_list as arguments).
It also prevents exposing internal variables (notifier lists
ARE internal variables) to modules.
What do you think?
Would
29 matches
Mail list logo
