From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] printk, netconsole: implement reliable netconsole Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:26:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20150417182654.GG16743@htj.duckdns.org> References: <20150417173754.GC16743@htj.duckdns.org> <201504180243.IDB78159.tFVOOFQFSOHLMJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20150417174522.GD16743@htj.duckdns.org> <201504180303.GAB26011.OLJFSMVFFOHtOQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20150417180732.GF16743@htj.duckdns.org> <201504180320.CFG26062.FtSJLOOQOFVFMH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Tetsuo Handa Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201504180320.CFG26062.FtSJLOOQOFVFMH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello, On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 03:20:41AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I didn't mean to introduce netconsole's own version of metadata. > I meant we don't need to implement in-kernel retry logic. Hmmm? I'm not really following where this discussion is headed. No, we don't have to put it in the kernel. We can punt the retry part to userland as I wrote in another message at some cost to robustness. > If we can assume that scheduler is working, adding a kernel thread that > does > > while (1) { > read messages with metadata from /dev/kmsg > send them using UDP network > } > > might be easier than modifying netconsole module. But, I mean, if we are gonna do that in kernel, we better do it properly where it belongs. What's up with "easier than modifying netconsole module"? Why is netconsole special? And how would the above be any less complex than a single timer function? What am I missing? Thanks. -- tejun