Common interface for sensors/health monitoring

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting Antony Mawer <lists at mawer.org> (from Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:34:46 +1000):

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Marc Balmer<marc at msys.ch> wrote:

> Is there a summary (perhaps something suitable to go on the Project
> Ideas page) that outlines:
>
> - An outline of what such a system should provide
> - What it should NOT provide (ie. what would be "out of scope")
> - What lessons should be learned from the SoC effort (ie. both good
> points and what NOT to do)
> - Suggested starting points

There's nothing like this.

The big controversy in the discussion is, that one party wants to put  
a lot of processing and logic into the kernel (IMO over-engineered),  
and the GSoC-party wants to keep this complexity out of the kernel  
(why doing stuff in the kernel when it can be done in the userland,  
there's no need to get the last few % of performance out of this).

Other things discussed there (providing the data via sysctl or via a  
binary interface in /dev/) are minor implementation details which do  
not really matter that much (the argument of the GSoC-party was that  
we already have the sysctl interface and use it already for similar  
things like process monitoring (kern.proc.*), and it also usable in  
single-user mode without the need to write another decoding utility  
for this new binary data).

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

http://www.Leidinger.net    Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org       netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137