Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:41:47 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sensors fun.. Message-ID: <200710190841.48129.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20071019113444.xinyc37x9cg0ckk0@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <200710171245.36949.jhb@freebsd.org> <200710181450.38224.jhb@freebsd.org> <20071019113444.xinyc37x9cg0ckk0@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 19 October 2007 05:34:44 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> (from Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:50:37 -0400): > > > On Thursday 18 October 2007 07:39:49 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >> To me it looks like your proposal spans more than one of the above > >> described layers in one package. It seems you describe what I call > >> single-system sensors framework above. It looks like you want to have > >> this with parts of it in the kernel. I don't think this is a good idea > >> as I don't think userland data should be feed into the kernel. Could > >> you please describe where you see benefits of your architecture > >> compared to the description I provided above? > > > > Nowhere do I suggest to feed userland data into the kernel just so it can be > > reexported to userland. Instead, I think the "public" interface that systat, > > monitoring daemons, SNMP, etc. should be a userland interface that can have > > multiple backends. It can pull data from a sensor implemented in userland or > > a sensor implemented in the kernel. > > I was thinking you talk about the interface between the kernel and the > userland. Now I think that you talk more or less about something which > could be implemented e.g., as an userland library which not only polls > the kernel sensors framework, but provides the single-system sensor > data (and could be a base of a singe-system sensor daemon which feeds > its data to a group-level sensors framework). Does this sound like > what you have in mind? Yes. And I don't think that the kernel-userland interface for kernel-backed sensors should be a "public" interface, but a private backend that only the sensors framework uses. The "public" interface that tools and users, etc. should be using is the library. Basically, in your three levels of sensors I think the first level should be an implementation detail that is free to change if needed as it won't be a "public" API. The stable, public API would be the userland interface. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710190841.48129.jhb>