Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:48:25 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@FreeBSD.org> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: KTR and SCTP Message-ID: <467100D9.7040600@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4670B1A0.4070706@cisco.com> References: <46706E63.1080906@cisco.com> <20070614022510.GA61989@rot13.obsecurity.org> <4670B1A0.4070706@cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randall Stewart wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 06:23:31PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote: >> >>> All: >>> >>> I am in the process of converting all the logging that >>> SCTP does to use the KTR sub-system. This will fit >>> nicely.. I still need to do some things to make it >>> so I can pull out the logs and make pretty charts and >>> graphs (in SCTP its used for debugging but also exploring >>> how CC and other niceties works).. >>> >>> But I was wondering.. would anyone mind if I took >>> KTR_SPARE2 >>> >>> and made it: >>> >>> KTR_SCTP_SUBSYS >>> >>> I have a huge amount of tracing under SCTP now.. so >>> many I am setting in a seperate mask set to enable/disable >>> various pieces of it.. So I was thinking it would >>> warrent a sub-system of its own :-D >>> >>> Any objections? If not I will change it :-D >> >> >> Yeah, we really do need to keep those spare fields for local use. >> >> Kris >> > Ok.. so I will just use > > KTR_SPARE2 KTR_SCTP would not be more appropriate? Attilio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?467100D9.7040600>