>> Personally, I'd prefer to see Linux move over to having any error call
>> a separate module to generate the actual error message, and leave that
>> module to sort out the precice wording thereof. That way, it could be
>Why litter the kernel with messages? Why not just add error interpretation
>to some external daemon - sysklogd is an excellent place to do that. It
>would simply parse all kerenel messages looking for, say
>
>"kernel: kerror 00 at 0x0000:0x0000"
>
>then look it up in some erorr database and output the translated message -
>and even localized one if you will. Less kernel space, more convenience for
>users, and no more such longish discussions as this one. I would gladly code
>it, if there was consent it's a good approach.
>
>> However, when I proposed such a system some months back, and offered
>> to do the necessary, it was turned down by all concerned, apparently
>> on the basis of the loss of performancee that such a system was
>> claimed to inevitably suffer from.
>If put in the kernel, yes, but in the userland?
What happens when due to some system malfunction, syslogd and/or
klogd dies? Then nothing gets logged, and nothing gets printed.
Bad thing... I gladly give up the bit of memory the kernel error
messages require, to be sure I'll know why it has crashed if it
does. They've come in handy a couple of times. I wish it were
even more verbose personally.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate GNU advocate Computer Consultant Open Source advocateTea, Earl Grey, Hot...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/