++ 26/09/01 22:38 +0200 - Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
>
> > > 2. I'd really prefer to see callers use
> > > register_sysrq_key() and unregister_sysrq_key() so that they
> > > can get/use return values, and not the lower-level functions
> > > "__sysrq*" functions that are EXPORTed in sysrq.c.
> > > I don't see a good reason to EXPORT all of these functions.
> >
> > So would I, however, the lower interface is there so that modules can
> > restructure the table in more complex ways, allowing for sub-menus.
>
> This is kernel, and sysrq was designed to be debug tool. It turned out
> to be more successfull than expected...
>
> Just keep in mind its a debug tool. If you need hierarchical submenus,
> then you are probably not using it as debug tool, right?
> Pavel
Wrong. If I have heirarchal menus, then I can have debug code for many
parts of the kernel, and _detailed_ debug code for any given part, in
the sysrq handlers simultaneously.
--
Crutcher <[email protected]>
GCS d--- s+:>+:- a-- C++++$ UL++++$ L+++$>++++ !E PS+++ PE Y+ PGP+>++++
R-(+++) !tv(+++) b+(++++) G+ e>++++ h+>++ r* y+>*$