2012/2/17, Marcel Moolenaar <mar...@xcllnt.net>: > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following: >> [snip] >>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> [snip] >>>>>> For me personally the immediate benefits in the common situations >>>>>> outweighed the >>>>>> problems in the edge cases, although I still believe that we can get >>>>>> the >>>>>> former >>>>>> without sacrifices in the latter. >> [snip] >>> It sounds fine, but I don't have sufficient time to spend on this right >>> now. So I can either back out the changes I mentioned above (assuming we >>> get agreement from avg), or leave things as is. >> >> I stick to what I wrote above and so chose the status quo. >> The backout would make sense if it is immediately followed by commit of a >> better >> solution. Unfortunately, a lack of time here too. > > I think we should lift above the immediate problem and allow for > single- and multi-line messages that are atomically appended to > the message buffer. Console output and propagation of messages > outside of the kernel should all come out of the message buffer > and preserving the atomicity of the messages. > > The message buffer does not have to be a chunk of memory that > we circularly scribble to. It can be a per-cpu linked list of > messages even.
Do you think we could inherit much of the code from KTR subsystem? We could use KTR as a scheleton (and possibly improving it) for making a general circular-buffer and then create a new KPI, thus add implementations for KTR, msgbuf, etc. My 2 cents, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
