svn commit: r231814 - in head/sys: kern sys

[Attilio Rao]

2012/2/17, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel at 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