Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:54:17 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Reducing noise in dmesg output Message-ID: <4A9FE6A9.2070009@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0909031645560.81808@fledge.watson.org> References: <200909010931.16880.nick@van-laarhoven.org> <1251841416.1689.4458.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <200909021656.15747.nick@van-laarhoven.org> <2fd864e0909021645p735e22b8id7d41f4b5a0ee89e@mail.gmail.com> <4A9F4DC1.4010002@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0909031035260.36214@fledge.watson.org> <4A9FDFD6.2090305@icyb.net.ua> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0909031645560.81808@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 03/09/2009 18:46 Robert Watson said the following: > I stand pleasantly corrected :-). However, I think the point holds: > we're relying on dmesg as the authoritative source of hardware > discovery/probe information, and really, we should be using some more > structured way of delivering that information, generic or device-specific. Yes, I do agree. And - I can't explain why - this conversation reminded me of the sensors framework project. I expect a long discussion on the structure and access mechanism for such information. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A9FE6A9.2070009>