svn commit: r278479 - in head: etc sys/kern

[Benjamin Kaduk]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Rui Paulo <rpaulo at me.com> wrote:

> On Feb 09, 2015, at 03:16 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <bjkfbsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What advantage does putting this in devd have over a standalone daemon for
> crash reporting?  Is it just the ease of implementation to leverage the
> existing infrastructure?
>
>
> Well, I want to automatically inspect all the programs that crashed in a
> given system.  I don't see how you can do that with a standalone daemon.
> Or maybe I didn't understand what you meant.
>

I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to ask.

We could in principle write a new daemon, call it crash-reporterd for now,
and have the kernel notify that daemon whenever any program on the system
crashes.  But writing the infrastructure to support that would be a bunch
of work, and we already have devd set up to get notifications from the
kernel, so it is much faster to implement crash reporting in devd, even
though crashes in software have nothing to do with device changes.

The question boils down to: is the time saved by implementing it this way
worth the tradeoff of architectural purity.

I don't have an opinion myself, I just want to make sure the question is
considered.

-Ben